fy 2019 highway call for projects - michigan
TRANSCRIPT
1
FY 2019 Highway Call For Projects
(FY 2015 – FY 2019)
General Information and
Program Instructions
September 16, 2013
Compiled by Highway Call for Projects Program & Strategy Coordination Subcommittee
2
Table of Contents General Information ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Access Management ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Americans with Disabilities Act Requirements ---------------------------------------------- 4 Approval Committee ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Complete Streets --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Context Sensitive Solutions --------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Control Section and Physical Roadway Numbers ------------------------------------------- 8 Disadvantaged Business Enterprises ---------------------------------------------------------- 9 Environmental Justice -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 I-94 Project Coordination ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Impact to Existing Intelligent Transportation System Infrastructure ---------------------- 10 Improvements to the Call for Projects -------------------------------------------------------- 10 Indirect Cost Rate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Inflation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Multi- Modal Considerations ------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 Noise Abatement Program ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 Permanent Traffic Recorders ------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 Program/Project Management System (P/PMS) --------------------------------------------- 13 Programming of Projects ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 14 ProjectWise Paths -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Review and Analysis Form -------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Road Quality Forecasting System (RQFS) --------------------------------------------------- 14 Scoping Manual ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 Sidewalk Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 Stakeholder Input -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Requirements ----------------- 18 Submittal Checklist ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 Submittal of CFP Submittal Package (Notebook) ------------------------------------------ 19 Water Resources ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 Work Zone Safety and Mobility --------------------------------------------------------------- 21 Appendixes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23
Program Information ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32 Road Rehabilitation & Reconstruction (R & R) -------------------------------------------- 32 Road Capital Preventive Maintenance (CPM) ---------------------------------------------- 43 Bridge --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52 Safety ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62 Carpool Parking Lot ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) ------------------------------------------- 70 Pump Station Capital Rehabilitation ---------------------------------------------------------- 75 Replacement of Existing Freeway Lighting -------------------------------------------------- 78
3
General Information The General Information of the Highway Call for Projects (CFP) details items covering many program areas and provides helpful resources in developing your CFP Submittal Package (Notebook). Access Management Incorporate access management principles into project design, when feasible, such as shared driveways/service roads, properly spaced driveways, proper corner clearance and drive closures. Incorporating these principles into your project design and throughout program development can result in a corridor that is less congested, safer, aesthetically pleasing and provides efficient access. Partner with local communities to share examples and approaches to better manage the highway corridor. In addition, look for partnering opportunities to gain local participation in these efforts as well. Efficiencies in funding can be found when projects and/or work items are combined into one project. Access management is a set of proven techniques that can help do the following: • Reduce the number of crashes and improve safety • Reduce traffic congestion • Preserve the flow of traffic • Preserve the public investment in roads • Enhance the value of private land development Poor access management is most obvious along major free-access roads that are lined with commercial development. Along these routes, many separate driveways may be located too close to one another. This raises safety concerns and impedes the flow of traffic. To address this, MDOT seeks to promote an understanding of access management, and to improve state and local coordination. Some issues that contribute to poor access management, but can be improved are: • All road agencies need to be notified of local rezoning or changes in land use along MDOT
trunklines. • Local site plan review and approval processes should include all responsible road agencies. • Applications for driveway permits should be reviewed by road agencies prior to the site plan
approval. • Roadway reconstruction and resurfacing projects need to adequately address access issues. • Access management education can enlighten local government officials about traffic
impacts that result from local land use decisions.
4
Some items to remember when implementing access management improvements are: • Early communication and notification of MDOT by local agencies regarding proposed
developments affecting state trunklines is essential to developing efficient access to these sites without compromising trunkline operations, and processing permits with minimal delays and reviews.
• MDOT cost participation should be limited to driveway modifications made during reconstruction or major rehabilitation projects. Otherwise, driveway modifications should be a local or developer cost.
• Permits are needed from MDOT prior to constructing or modifying driveways on trunklines, during MDOT construction projects and/or construction by developers.
By partnering with local communities, many of these issues can be eliminated and how access to trunklines is granted and controlled can be properly managed. Contacts regarding Access Management: • Bay Region: Jay Reithel, 989-621-1474 • Grand Region: Dennis Kent, 616-451-4994 • Metro Region: Jim Schultz, 248-483-5131 • North Region: Dave Langhorst, 989-731-5090 x343 • Southwest Region: Jason Latham, 269-337-3792 • Superior Region: Vince Bevins, 906-786-1830 x315 • University Region: Kari Martin, 517-750-0407 Americans with Disabilities Act Requirements Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires state and local government transportation agencies to provide access for persons with disabilities wherever a pedestrian way is newly built or altered, and that the same degree of convenience, connection, and safety afforded the public generally is available to persons with disabilities. Additionally, the Act requires the development of a compliance transition plan. It is imperative that MDOT take action in its five year plan to ensure compliance with this requirement. It is expected that all projects requiring ADA improvements within the current and future five year plans will include the needed upgrades. For all projects with, proposed construction activities defined as an “alteration” in Appendix A (page 23), sidewalk ramps within the project limits shall be constructed or retrofitted as required to meet the ADA standards. For state routes with project limits including only a portion of an intersection, all ramps within the intersection shall be improved to meet the standard and the project limits extended to include the ramp work. When it is determined that full compliance is not practicable, the Region ADA Coordinator must review and document the justification. Construction of new ramps or reconstruction of existing ramps to meet standards must occur prior to or with the construction project. Proper field verification must be conducted to determine existing ramp compliance. Appropriate survey will be needed to properly engineer ADA compliant ramps and sidewalk approaches including the crosswalk.
5
A 2009 MDOT ADA Transition Plan was developed and approved to address infrastructure compliance. Emphasis in the plan is placed on sidewalk ramp compliance. Compliance status and projected 5-year compliance was tabulated for each region based on region sidewalk inventories and the incorporation of ADA sidewalk ramp upgrades into projects programmed in the 5-Year Plan. The Engineering Operations Committee (EOC) at their October 1, 2009, meeting directed that "The annual Call for Projects process shall include instructions for each region to report the status of sidewalk ramp compliance, and projected compliance goals". The following format shall be used:
REGION
TOTAL PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING POINTS
2013 PROJECTED - 2019
% COMPLIANT
% BARRIER
FREE
%
COMPLIANT
% BARRIER
FREE Bay Grand Metro North Southwest Superior University Statewide
“Barrier Free” is defined as presence of sidewalk ramps and curb cuts. These also include existing ramps constructed according to previous standards in effect during the time of construction, and ramps restricted to maximum technically feasible compliance. “Compliant” is defined as presence of sidewalk ramps and curb cuts meeting current MDOT standards for sidewalk ramps. Please include your region’s status in the region’s CFP Submittal Package (Notebook) and place your completed table in ProjectWise: (PW\CFP End Year 2019\ Call For Projects\Regions\ region\Submittals\Final\General Information).
Bay Region North Region University Region Grand Region Metro Region
Southwest Region Superior Region
Contact regarding Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements: • Design Division: Carlos Libiran, 517-335-1904
6
Approval Committee The members of Call for Projects Approval Committee are: Paul Ajegba, 517-750-0429 Region Engineer, University Region Selena Friend, 989-233-2056 Associate Region Engineer (Development), Bay Region Denise Jackson, 517-335-2962 Division Administrator – Statewide Transportation Planning Division Mark Van Port Fleet, 517-241-3998 Bureau Director – Highway Development Randy Van Portfliet, Vice-Chairperson 906-786-1800 Bureau Director – Field Services Dave Wresinski, Chairperson, 517-373-0343 Bureau Director – Transportation Planning Complete Streets Complete Streets legislation to advance cooperation and coordination among transportation and local governmental agencies became law in August of 2010 (P.A. 135 for Act 51 and P.A. 134 for the MI Planning Enabling Act). P.A. 135 states that for any project that affects a roadway or transportation facility, the department shall consult with the municipality and agree on how to address the Complete Streets policies. This requirement does not apply to projects listed in the FY 2010–2014 Five-Year Transportation Program approved by the State Transportation Commission (STC) on January 28, 2010. As you begin the scoping and project development phases of new projects, please work to engage stakeholders utilizing our Context Sensitive Solutions process to come to consensus with the municipality on how to address Complete Streets elements. Document all decisions or agreements reached as a result, including both formal agreements and informal design concepts. Any instance where agreement cannot be reached will be included in an annual report to the State Transportation Commission, the Legislature, and the Governor, according to P.A. 135. Complete streets policies aim to consider all legal users of the system within the context and function of the street. Elements that improve safety, access, transit corridors, meet ADA requirements, or contribute to bike and pedestrian movements are key components for documentation.
7
In compliance with the STC’s policy on Complete Streets dated July 26, 2012, MDOT must adhere to the policy on all state trunkline projects. An MDOT internal team, co-chaired by Drew Buckner and Vince Bevins, will be working to help ensure smooth implementation of Complete Streets. Contact regarding Complete Streets: • Intermodal Policy Division: Deb Alfonso, 517-373-2274 Context Sensitive Solutions The STC’s May 26, 2005, policy defines context sensitive solutions (CSS) as “a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach involving stakeholders for the development of a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, cultural, and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility." CSS is a process for bringing communities and transportation projects together, and results in better harmony between transportation needs and community values. Through this process, MDOT strives to create integrated transportation solutions utilizing a holistic approach to identify a broad range of user needs, best management practices for low impact development, and sustainable landscapes. The process should include collaborative stakeholder engagement to understand community values and identify interests such as multi-modal needs, aesthetics, historic properties, natural resources, scenic qualities, and recreational needs. The goal of stakeholder engagement is to improve connectivity, expand access to transportation opportunities, and improve coordination between transportation decision making and land use planning, and leverage funding to maximize transportation investments. To develop the best project submittals, stakeholder engagements should occur during the CFP process prior to your program submittals. The optimum time for stakeholder input is as we are initially developing project scopes and budgets. You should take into account project coordination with local agencies and other stakeholders and consider safe, creative alternatives that integrate the transportation project into the community. In compliance with the STC policy on Complete Streets dated July 26, 2012, MDOT will pursue a proactive and consistent approach to the development of complete streets, in keeping with its mission to provide the highest quality integrated transportation services for economic benefit and improved quality of life. MDOT will consider complete streets features for roadways and other transportation facility projects it undertakes, or permits other public or private entities to construct within the state trunk line right-of-way, working through its context sensitive solutions process. Additional resources related to CSS, Complete Streets, and MDOT’s Guidelines for Stakeholder Engagement, can be found at the following links: • CSS Web site http:
http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9621_41446---,00.html
8
• MDOT’s Guidelines for Stakeholder Engagement http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_Guidelines_For_Stakeholder_Engagement_264850_7.pdf
• Aesthetics Opportunity Inventory Web site: http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/apoi/
Contacts Regarding CSS: • Design: Brad Wieferich, 517-373-0030 • Environmental: Margaret Barondess, 517-335-2621 • Sustainable Roadsides and Aesthetics: Lynn Lynwood, 517-373-0026
Brad Peterson, 517-335-1912 • Non-Motorized: Josh DeBruyn, 517-335-2918
Cindy Krupp, 517-335-2923 • Historic Properties: Sigrid Bergland, 517-335-4229
Lloyd Baldwin, 517-241-2702 • Public Involvement: Bob Parsons, 517-373-9534 • Local Transit: Kim Johnson, 517-373-8796 • Intercity Bus: Jean Ruestman, 517-373-6625 • Rail Passenger and Rail Freight: Tim Hoeffner, 517-373-6672 • Complete Streets: Vince Bevins, 906-786-1830 ext.315
Drew Buckner, 586-978-1935 Brad Peterson, 517-335-1912
Control Section and Physical Reference Numbers All projects programmed on the MAP Database require a Control Section (CS) and Physical Reference Number (PRN). Accurate spatial programming is essential for MDOT project reporting and analysis efforts and is used by numerous sections here at MDOT. In anticipation of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) disallowing area or statewide PRN information (9999999), the Systems Implementation and Monitoring Unit within MDOT’s Statewide Transportation Planning Division is developing program guidance for how these types of jobs will be programmed to the MAP Database. This document should be available by October, 2013. For this CFP, please use Framework Version 13 for programming CS and PRN information. The MAP Database migrated to Version 13 on August 1, 2013, and will be available for use in the MPINS – MapX application. Contact regarding Control Section and Physical Roadway Numbers: • Statewide Transportation Planning Division: Rob Lippert, 517-373-2088 • Statewide Transportation Planning Division: Eric Costa, 517-335-2971
9
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Develop your program in a manner that considers providing opportunities for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) and small business. Project limits and other factors may have impacts on project development or construction opportunities that are provided to these groups. Contact regarding Disadvantaged Business Enterprises: • Office of Business Development: Pat Collins, 517-373-2377 Environmental Justice Impacts to Environmental Justice (EJ) groups should be considered during project and program development. MDOT is responsible for ensuring that its overall program does not disproportionately distribute benefits or negative effects on minority and low-income populations. For purposes of the CFP and other purposes for which EJ analysis is used, the EJ report is a stand-alone technical report. The technical report will document MDOT’s process and analytical methods in adhering to Title VI requirements; Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations; and the DBE. The EJ Technical Report is a sister document to the CFP document by reference and the analysis will be developed within the Statewide Transportation Planning Division. The document will be retained by the Statewide Transportation Planning Division and copied to the region engineers and system managers.
The analysis will address three fundamental EJ principles: 1. To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on low-income and minority populations. 2. To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by
low-income and minority populations. 3. Ensure adequate public involvement of low-income and minority populations in the
transportation decision making process. Requirements and Key Dates April 18, 2014 Preliminary project list of FY 2015 - FY 2019 CFP are expected to be
programmed into MAP database May 1, 2014 Snapshot of the 2019 CFP preliminary list taken from MAP database May 28, 2014 EJ Analysis Draft Report completed and provided to Program & Strategy
Subcommittee (P&SC) and regions for review June 9, 2014 Feedback from P&SC and regions to EJ Coordinator, Ola Williams, if
necessary June 18, 2014 Regions submit adjusted program to Program Subcommittees if required
based on feedback received on June 9, 2014
10
June 30, 2014 EJ Analysis Final Report completed and provided to P&SC and regions July 8, 2014 P&SC forwards EJ Analysis Final Report to CFP Approval Committee Contact regarding Environmental Justice: • Statewide Transportation Planning Division: Ola Williams, 517-241-1237 I-94 Project Coordination To supplement the growing need for project tracking and coordination along the I-94 corridor, a consolidated CFP project list has been developed and made available to the Metro, University and Southwest Regions. This project list can be found in the following ProjectWise folder: PW\General Information\I94 Projects. The list includes all I-94 projects currently programmed to the MAP database. The list, along with subsequent maps, will be updated on annual basis for use in each call. Contacts regarding I-94 Project Coordination: • Statewide Transportation Planning Division: Rob Lippert, 517-373-2088 • Statewide Transportation Planning Division: Eric Costa, 517-335-2971 Impact to Existing Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Infrastructure
As projects are selected to be submitted in the CFP, please identify those projects where any ITS infrastructure currently exists. Many projects have potential to impact the existing ITS infrastructure, which can be easily missed during scoping and design. Most ITS infrastructure is not covered by the MISS DIG process. As such, it is important that existing infrastructure is identified early in the project process. (Please note that all contractors should be submitting a separate ITS infrastructure staking form [MDOT Form 5300] for all projects; this can be ensured by designers including the “Protect ITS Infrastructure” Special Provision in the design package.) Contact your region ITS coordinator for the locations of the ITS equipment while scoping and designing your projects. Some of the ITS equipment needs to be protected while other items may need to be replaced. It would be more cost effective to make sure this is addressed early in the development process. Contacts regarding Impact to Existing Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Infrastructure: • Bureau of Field Services, Operations Field Services Division: Matt Smith, 517-636-5009 Improvements to the Call for Projects The CFP is an important process for the department. The CFP Improvement Subcommittee is requesting region suggestions to improve the CFP process. Provide a list of suggestions to the CFP process in the region’s CFP Submittal Package (Notebook). Place your Microsoft Word
11
document in ProjectWise: (PW\CFP End Year 2019\ Call For Projects\Regions\region\ Submittals\Final\General Information).
Bay Region North Region University Region Grand Region Metro Region
Southwest Region Superior Region
Contact regarding Improvements to the Call for Projects: • Statewide Transportation Planning Division: Rob Lippert, 517-373-2088 Indirect Cost Rate MDOT implemented an Indirect Cost Allocation Plan (ICAP) in FY 2011. This allows MDOT to be reimbursed with federal aid for some of its administrative/overhead costs. The ICAP, which was approved by FHWA, allows MDOT to develop a rate that will be applied to all MDOT direct labor costs on federally funded trunkline capital outlay projects. The actual rate will be updated annually by the Finance Operations Division. For this CFP, the indirect cost rate of 70 percent should be assumed when estimating your project budgets. It is projected the future rates will be very close to this level. Contact regarding Indirect Cost Rate: • Statewide Transportation Planning Division: Rob Lippert, 517-373-2088 Inflation All project estimates on the MAP database should be reflecting future year dollars. This is the assumption for other users using the MAP database and when future year programs are reported. Please use an inflation factor of 5 percent for FY 2015-2018, and 4.5 percent for FY 2019.
As you review your projects in the CFP, please make sure inflation is accounted for in FY 2015 through FY 2019 projects. The inflation rate must be entered into MAP Project INformation System (MPINS) for your new projects as well. Please remember that if you move a project forward, the estimates should be adjusted downward; if you delay a project, the estimates should be increased.
When using the FY 2014 estimate as the base year, please enter the following percentages in the MPINS - Concept Statement - Road Cost Tab or the Bridge Cost Tab: • FY 2015 Obligation, use 5% • FY 2016 Obligation, use 10% • FY 2017 Obligation, use 16% • FY 2018 Obligation, use 22% • FY 2019 Obligation, use 27%
12
Contact regarding Inflation: • Statewide Transportation Planning Division: Karen Howe, 517-335-2615 • Statewide Transportation Planning Division: Fran Deatrick, 517-373-2233 Multi-Modal Considerations Multi-modal solutions should be considered during project development in order to develop an integrated Five-Year Transportation Program. This includes ensuring the project does not negatively impact other modes, and looking for opportunities to have the project leverage benefits for other modes. Solutions that make the roadway more pedestrian, bicycle, and transit friendly are very cost-effective when implemented in conjunction with road work, and should be integrated when feasible. It is important to consider the infrastructure and operational needs of other modes that can be incorporated into your program development and project design as early as possible. Within high transit corridors, you should consider what needs to be done on the road to support transit vehicles, and opportunities for transit options to reduce traffic backups during construction. Look for opportunities to address rail crossing/railroad structure needs and coordination issues, and if there is an airport within project proximity, ensure all airport airspace safety issues are addressed. In compliance with the STC policy on Complete Streets dated July 26, 2012, projects must adhere to the policy. Contacts regarding for Multi-Modal Considerations: • Local Transit and Intercity Bus, Office of Passenger Transportation: Sharon Edgar,
517-373-0471 • Aviation, Office of Aeronautics: Mike Trout, 517-335-9568 • Non-Motorized/Pedestrian, Intermodal Policy Division: Josh DeBruyn, 517-335-2918 • Rail Passenger and Rail Freight, Office of High Speed Rail: Tim Hoeffner, 517-373-6672 Noise Abatement Program Program Description The Type II Noise Abatement program is a voluntary program offered by the FHWA. The purpose of the Type II program is to help reduce traffic noise for those residences that were in place at the time a freeway was constructed and prior to 1995. STC Policy 10136 authorizes the program. Funding Target Per STC policy, funding is dependent on the size of the Road and Bridge Program. In those years when the Road and Bridge Program, excluding Maintenance, exceed $1 billion plus inflation, no more than one half of one percent will be spent on Type II noise abatement. It is estimated that the Road and Bridge Program, excluding Maintenance, will not exceed $1 billion plus inflation during this CFP cycle; therefore, per STC policy, the Noise Abatement Program funding is suspended. Program Implementation During the program suspension, MDOT will not be accepting applications for Type II projects. A statewide inventory of all MDOT noise abatement structures began in FY 2009 and concluded
13
in FY 2010. As of now, only rehabilitation of existing MDOT noise abatement structures will be worked on. The Operations Field Services (OFS) Division will use the statewide inventory to identify noise abatement structures with critical needs and prioritize rehabilitation projects. OFS will share information about the identified rehabilitation projects with the regions to coordinate project schedules. Contact regarding Noise Abatement Program: • Operations Field Services Division: Tom Zurburg, 517-322-6138 Permanent Traffic Recorders As you select projects to be submitted in the CFP, please identify those projects where permanent traffic recorders (PTRs) currently exist. Include any associated PTR work in your project estimates. A map detailing the PTR locations, including control section and milepoint information, is available on InsideMDOT. A quick link named Permanent Traffic Recorders is posted on the Transportation Planning main page. Please use the above link to locate the existing PTR information within each region. Please note for bridge projects there are a few locations that have the PTR cabinet located between bridge piers at bridges over the freeway or located next to the slope at a bridge. At these locations the department has loops and/or sensors usually within 20 to 100 feet of the structure. There are also some bridges in the Detroit Metro, Lansing and Grand Rapids areas that have conduits for power and phone services located under the bridge, attached to the bridge, bridge rail, on the safety fence or in the sidewalk of the bridge. Contact regarding Permanent Traffic Recorders: • Asset Management Division: Alan Jerome, 517-322-1726, or mobile 517-712-1621 Program/Project Management System As a part of the CFP, each region shall prepare Program/Project Management System (P/PMS) networks for all new projects. Existing projects with scheduled changes should have a revised P/PMS network submitted. All trunkline jobs that will be let require P/PMS networks. For new projects, you can automatically generate a generic network by filling out the characteristics of the project in MPINS. In MPINS, go to the Concept Statement Module. Choose the P/PMS tab and then fill out both sections of the characteristics as applicable for the project. Once the Concept Statement is saved, a generic network will be generated by P/PMS the following morning. If you need assistance or have any questions, please contact a member of the P/PMS support team.
14
Contact list for P/PMS assistance: • P/PMS Support: Dennis Kelley, 517-373-4614 • P/PMS Support: Lenny Robinson, 517-335-3291 • P/PMS Support: Scott Habetler, 517-335-3278
Programming of Projects Projects that are submitted in the FY 2019 CFP should be programmed on the MAP Database prior to close of business day on April 18, 2014. Contact regarding project programming: • Statewide Transportation Planning Division: Rob Lippert, 517-373-2088 ProjectWise Paths Throughout this document we reference ProjectWise paths. To improve readability, the paths as described in the document have been shortened. When you see “ProjectWise (PW\.....)”, it is an abbreviated version of “ProjectWise (MDOTProjectWise\Documents\Statewide Groups\Highway Call For Projects\.....”). The hyperlinks that follow the ProjectWise location should take you directly to the folders that are referenced. Contact regarding ProjectWise links: • Statewide Transportation Planning Division: Eric Costa, 517-335-2971 Review and Analysis Forms For the FY 2019 CFP we are using standard Review and Analysis Forms. These forms will be used by the program subcommittees to review submittals and provide feedback to the regions. Please go to ProjectWise: (PW\CFP End Year 2019\Call For Projects\Regions\region\Review and Analysis) for the latest version of the forms. Contact regarding Review and Analysis Forms: • Statewide Transportation Planning Division – Jim Ashman 517-373-2967 Road Quality Forecasting System The Road Quality Forecasting System (RQFS) is a web-based forecasting tool to help MDOT project future pavement conditions and develop strategies for project selection. The RQFS program has an excellent Help feature that contains the RQFS user manual, which should help you significantly with the use of the system.
15
RQFS cost tables have been updated as of July 2013 and will be used in this CFP. They were developed in cooperation between Central Office staff and Region Pavement Management Engineers using Programmed Projects from FY 2011 to FY 2018. When creating RQFS strategies use the following naming convention: Strategy File Name=XX19F MM/DD/YY or XX19NF MM/DD/YY, where: XX = 1st two letters of your region name 19 refers to the 2019 CFP F refers to Freeway NF refers to Non-Freeway MM refers to month DD refers to date YY refers to year Example: Bay Region will have one file with the name BA19F 09/27/13 and one file with
the name BA19NF 09/27/13. Using this naming convention allows the Central Office (or any region) to assemble all strategies in a combined run to look at statewide results or to look at a total network result for each. After finalizing your strategies, save them as public. The first year strategy displayed from your MAP “Program Projects” for Year 1 should represent pavement projects to be let in FY 2014. To be consistent with the RSL assignment process, include projects let in September 2013 for FY 2014. Year 2 should represent projects that will be let in FY 2015. Year 3 should represent projects let in FY 2016, and so on, until the FY 2019 reconstruction and rehabilitation strategies are entered. Strategies from Program Projects beyond FY 2019 should be deleted. Starting with FY 2020, enter your long-term pavement strategy. The long-term CPM strategy begins after you have entered your 2015 CPM strategy, if there is not an interim strategy in between the 2015 program and the long-term strategy. CPM strategies from Program Projects should be deleted if they are beyond 2015. Fix life values should not be increased or inflated to account for future crack treatment benefits. The fix life estimates developed for R&R and CPM fixes already account for fix life extensions from future crack sealing work. RQFS strategies should not include crack sealing or concrete joint resealing type projects. However, the estimated budget for CPM work in your long-term strategy should leave room for crack sealing and joint resealing projects. Include a brief description of this set aside as a comment in the RQFS strategy. Utilize the 2014 Call For Projects CPM Fix Life Extensions available in the Road CPM section, and the CFP 2019 Fix Life Guidelines available in the Road R&R section and on ProjectWise, when entering your strategies. It is not necessary to adjust previously programmed projects. As a reminder, multiple work type codes are now incorporated into MPINS and are to be programmed appropriately.
16
Remaining Service Life (RSL) Categories: Category I RSL = 0-2 Years Category II RSL = 3-7 Years Category III RSL = 8-12 Years Category IV RSL = 13-17 Years Category V RSL = 18-22 Years Category VI RSL = 23-27 Years The system default inflation rate has been adjusted to 4.5 percent in RQFS for this CFP. Check “strategy options” to ensure the inflation rate is 0 percent for first six years and 4.5 percent for the long-term. Each region must use their 2019 R&R target and their 2015 CPM target to establish their long-term strategies. The RQFS program automatically decreases the long-term R&R and CPM percent (after the Five Year Plan time frame) into the future based on the annual inflation rate (4.5 percent for this CFP). For the long-term strategy submittal, provide a constrained long-term strategy that is within (+/-) 5 percent of the combined Freeway and Non-Freeway long-term targets, according to the updated RQFS costs. Your CPM strategy should also be constrained to within (+/-) 5 percent of your RQFS costs. Constrain the R&R and CPM strategies separately. Verify this by processing the long-term CPM strategy without an R&R strategy.
The long-term strategy should not change significantly from year to year, unless there is a significant change in strategic direction or a significant change in funding resources. Use MDOT’s balanced “mix-of-fixes” approach when developing strategies.
After all new projects have been programmed and changes to previously programmed projects have been made for the final RQFS submittal, use the Program Projects feature in RQFS for FY 2014 – FY 2019 Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Strategies and FY 2014-FY 2015 Capital Preventive Maintenance Strategies. In the Program Projects list, verify which projects are missing and/or which ones should be excluded for various reasons (i.e. do not affect pavement condition, have multiple fix types, etc.). Lane miles in RQFS are from the Pavement Condition File, which is based on the Lane Mile Inventory. Add lane miles (or percentages of lane miles) of missing projects manually on the Select Network > Create Strategy page after creating a strategy from the programmed projects. Compare the program projects results with your personal calculations to make sure they are correct. Contact Jim Ashman if there are any problems with the RQFS results.
The RQFS portion of the Call for Projects review process will consist of three submittals. Dates and submittal requirements are located in the Road R&R section of these instructions.
Long-Term Strategy Submittal The strategy submittal will be reviewed for each region’s new long-term strategy. This CFP starts with year FY 2020 R&R and FY 2016 CPM. Each region’s long-term strategy will be reviewed using the following criteria: constraint, mix of fixes, and deviations from previous long term strategy. Include a brief explanation of any changes from the previous year’s long-term strategy. For the fifth year (FY 2019 for this CFP), regions should use the long-term
17
strategy from the previous year’s CFP as a placeholder rather than inserting a new strategy for that year. Preliminary Project Submittal This submittal will be reviewed to determine if the proposed projects (FY 2019 R&R and FY 2015 CPM) implement the previous year’s long-term strategy. Based on the preliminary project selections, estimate the number of lane miles that will be worked on and enter into RQFS. Final CFP Submittal This submittal will be reviewed for any changes from the preliminary project submittal. Any changes require a write up in the final submittal folder.
Contact for Road Quality Forecasting System: • Statewide Transportation Planning: Jim Ashman, 517-373-2967 Scoping Manual The Scoping Manual is located on the Intranet, on the Plan Development Services page:
http://inside.michigan.gov/sites/mdot/highways/plan-dev/SitePages/Home.aspx The use of the Scoping Manual, and the tools associated with it, is mandated and shall be used for the CFP estimating process. The manual includes instructions and guidance for developing proposed project estimates. In addition to the information that may guide you through the process, it also contains the needed forms and ProjectWise instructions that will be required for completing the estimating packages. Scoping documents are to be available in ProjectWise for review, with a link to them included in the Spreadsheet for each new project. The CFP process will require the use of: • Trns•port (including the other Estimating Tools included in the Scoping Manual, for the
generated estimates) • ProjectWise (instructions for the use of the new file structure is included in the Scoping
Manual). • Scoping Checklists/Worksheets, other miscellaneous items identified in the Scoping Manual Contact regarding Scoping Manual: • Grand Region: Vicki Weerstra, 616-451-4646 Sidewalk Policy In 2006, Public Act 51 (of 1951) was amended to allow Act 51 funds to be spent on “the addition or improvement of a sidewalk in a city or village.” Please refer to the Road Design Manual for additional information, and Section 6.08.01 of the Road Design Manual for details on implementation of this policy.
18
Please review your projects in the CFP, verify your estimates account for this work in previously approved projects, and be sure to include possible sidewalk works in your new project estimates.
Contact regarding the Sidewalk Policy: • Development Services Division: Rob Beckon, 517-335-2211 Stakeholder Input The process allows MDOT to include stakeholder and partnership values in program development. Project selection decisions should be guided by input received throughout the planning process and made in consultation with Local Agency, Rural Task Force, and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) partners. Continue the valuable coordination and working relationships that have been occurring. It is MDOT’s goal to provide local elected officials and state legislators with the opportunity to provide input in the development of the Five-Year Transportation Program. The CFP provides the ideal opportunity to obtain their input throughout the program development process. Invitations should be extended to these stakeholders at key steps in an attempt to increase their involvement in the decision-making process. Contact regarding the Stakeholder Input: • Design Division: Brad Peterson, 517-335-1912 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Requirements Federal law requires all transportation projects to be listed in the four-year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), if the projects are in an MPO. The STIP must also demonstrate that MDOT has sufficient financial resources to fund the multi-year program. The STIP and MPO TIPs, which are included in the STIP by reference, are normally prepared every three years. The current approved STIP covers FY 2011-2014. The new STIP covering FY 2014-2017 is in development and is expected to be approved by October 1, 2013. Projects for inclusion in the STIP are obtained directly from the MAP Database. If a project is not in the current STIP or TIP, then the project will require an amendment. STIP and MPO TIP Amendments are processed every other month. The exception is SEMCOG. SEMCOG only processes amendments three times a year. Please see the amendment calendar (Appendix B – page 25). No project can be initiated in MAP Financial Obligation System (MFOS) until it is in the current FHWA/FTA approved STIP, and the STIP indicators in MPINS have been updated to indicate the projects have been approved by the MPO and FHWA.
19
Project managers can ensure their projects are included in the STIP, or in an amendment, by keeping the Let Date and the Phase Scheduled Start Date up-to-date and to notify their region planner and the Statewide Planning Section whenever there is a change in scope, funding source or other critical information. Additional information on how to avoid STIP related delays and to answer the most frequently asked questions is available in Appendix C (page 26). Contact for Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Requirements: • Statewide Planning Section: Mark Kloha 517-241-3675
Submittal Checklist The Submittal Checklist summarizes items to be included in your CFP Submittal Package (Notebook) to provide guidance as you create your submittals. We made efforts to include all of the requested items mentioned in each of the individual program sections and General Information required for the CFP Submittal Package (Notebook). The Submittal Checklist will be placed in the ProjectWise folder:
(PW\CFP End Year 2019\Call for Projects\Letter\General Information) Please note there are required submittals included in the checklist that are detailed in the General Information, but not on the Program Instructions: • Americans with Disabilities Act Requirements • Improvements to the Call for Projects Contact regarding Submittal Checklist: • Statewide Transportation Planning Division: Rob Lippert, 517-373-2088 Submittal of CFP Submittal Package (Notebook) For the 2019 CFP, the regions will be requested to create a PDF CFP Submittal Package (Notebook) by program area after the 2019 CFP is approved. This process will: • Eliminate different versions of the “Notebook” by re-creating a PDF “Notebook” with each
revision. • Provide accurate historic record of the CFP submittal and allow the inclusion of the
approved justification forms in the region’s “Notebook”. The program CFP submittals will still happen, but will be completed using Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel as instructed for each program. All required spreadsheets and text should be included as separate files in ProjectWise in the related program folder:
20
(PW\CFP End Year 2019\ Call For Projects\Regions\region\Submittals\Final\program) Bay Region North Region University Region Grand Region Metro Region
Southwest Region Superior Region
After the 2019 CFP is approved by MDOT’s Chief Operation Officer and Chief Administrative Officer in late July or early August, regions will be informed to create a PDF of the approved program submittal. Please combine each of the program PDFs into one CFP Submittal Package (Notebook), including text and spreadsheets, and store as one document in ProjectWise:
PW\CFP End Year 2019\ Call For Projects\Regions\region\Submittals\Final\Notebook Bay Region North Region University Region Grand Region Metro Region
Southwest Region Superior Region
This PDF document should be bookmarked for ease of review and reference as follows: • Each major category of the submittal should be bookmarked first. • Significant text and/or graphics should be bookmarked under this major category. • Adobe allows you to do this, thereby creating a "collapsed" or "expanded" bookmark tree.
This should make navigating your submittal easier for all involved in the CFP process. Contact regarding CFP Submittal Package (Notebook): • Statewide Transportation Planning Division: Craig Newell, 517-373-9074 Water Resources There are several areas of concern, with regards to Water Resources, that should be addressed. These items include: • Stream mitigation – Action to mitigate for the physical impact to the regulated water course
from the proposed work. This will be an Inland Lakes and Streams (part 301) permit requirement sometime after 2012.
• Permits – MDOT holds a statewide storm water permit from Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). This permit requires that all MDOT projects be reviewed for storm water impacts and Post Construction Best Management Practices (PC-BMPs) be incorporated as practicable. These PC-BMPs may be structural or vegetated and range in cost.
• MDOT will apply for a new permit beginning in Fiscal Year 2014, expected to be issued and effective October 1, 2015. This new permit will contain requirements that are consistent with rules adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and administered in Michigan by MDEQ.
21
• The new permit will have several new provisions and standards to be met with regard to storm water discharge.
Stream mitigation costs should be included on projects that place a new culvert (not a replacement culvert) or require stream relocation. PC-BMP costs should be included on projects that include water courses or wetlands within the project limits. Section 6-19 of MDOT’s Project Scoping Manual gives an explanation of storm water BMPs and guidance on how to account for the cost of these measures when scoping a project. Contacts regarding Water Resources: • Bureau of Highway Development, Environmental Services Section:
Barb Barton 517-241-2311 Mike O’Malley, 517-335-2634 Kristin Schuster, 517-373-8258 Hal Zweng, 517-335-2171
Work Zone Safety and Mobility Transportation safety and mobility are key elements to supporting a vibrant economy in Michigan. MDOT developed a Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy and Manual in response to requirements in Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 630, Subpart J and K, as well as to enhance driver mobility and commerce movements on the Michigan Transportation System. The Work Zone Safety and Mobility Manual can be found at the following link:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_WorkZoneSafetyAndMobilityManual_2338 91_7.pdf
The Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy provide value to all people, goods, and services that utilize the transportation system in Michigan. This document supports the process for the systematic consideration and management of work zone impacts on all federal aid highway projects across all stages of project planning, scoping, development, delivery, maintenance, and operations. The policy is a key component in the department’s strategic plan, as it directly incorporates three of the strategic goals. Planning, development, delivery, maintenance, and operations staff are all equally responsible to ensure that the policy is implemented effectively. The policy became effective September 1, 2007, as Guidance Document 10177. Although the policy is a major compliance element for the FHWA Final Work Zone Rule, the goal is to enhance both aspects of safety and mobility across the state trunkline system and the entire transportation network. The Work Zone Safety and Mobility Manual supplements the policy and addresses details regarding work zone safety and mobility criteria. Specific processes, procedures, guidelines, roles, and responsibilities to support implementation of the policy have been developed. The manual includes the incorporation of work zone safety and operational data, development of Transportation Management Plans (TMP), work zone monitoring, and work zone process
22
reviews. The manual is intended to be a user friendly living document that will provide consistency and quality across the state. Projects that exceed the mobility criteria thresholds will require the development and implementation of a TMP as their sustained work zone impacts may be significant. A TMP consists of three primary components: (1) a temporary traffic control plan that addresses the safety and temporary traffic control through the work zone, (2) transportation operations plan that will be used to mitigate work zone impacts, and (3) public information plan to inform those affected by the work zone impacts and changing conditions. The appropriate TMP provisions and pay items are to be included within the plans, specifications and project estimates. The TMP is to assign responsibility to those persons, both MDOT and contractor, responsible to monitor and implement the TMP and other safety and mobility aspects of the project. Contact for Work Zone Safety and Mobility: • Traffic Incident & Work Zone Management Unit: Angie Kremer, 517-636-0247
23
Appendix A (ADA)/Section 504 – Civil Rights | Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 202-366-4000
Civil Rights
Glossary of Terms for DOJ/FHWA Joint Technical Assistance on the ADA Title II Requirements to Provide Curb Ramps When Streets Roads or
Highways are Altered Through Resurfacing This glossary is intended to help readers understand certain road treatments referenced on page 2 of the DOJ/FHWA Joint Technical Assistance on the ADA Title II Requirements to Provide Curb Ramps When Streets Roads or Highways are Altered Through Resurfacing. The definitions explain the meaning of these terms from an engineering perspective and are provided in the order in which they appear in the Technical Assistance document. Treatments that are considered alterations of the road surface Reconstruction – Reconstruction refers to removing all or a significant portion of the pavement material and replacing it with new or recycled materials. This may include full-depth reclamation, where the pavement surface is demolished in place and new pavement surface is applied. In addition, reconstruction may also include grinding up a portion of the pavement surface, recycling it and placing it back, and then adding a wearing surface, such as in cold in-place asphalt recycling. Reconstruction often includes widening or geometrical changes to the roadway profile. Rehabilitation – Rehabilitation refers to significant repairs made to a road or highway surface, including activities such as full slab replacement, filling voids under slabs (slabjacking), widening, and adding additional structural capacity. Open-graded surface course – Open-graded surface course, also known as “open-graded friction course,” involves a pavement surface course that consists of a high-void, asphalt concrete mix that permits rapid drainage of rainwater through the course and off the shoulder of the road. The mixture consists of either Polymer-modified or rubber-modified asphalt binder, a large percentage of one- sized coarse aggregate, and a small amount of fibers. This treatment prevents tires from hydroplaning and provides a skid-resistant pavement surface with significant noise reduction. Microsurfacing – Microsurfacing involves spreading a properly proportioned mixture of polymer modified asphalt emulsion, mineral aggregate, mineral filler, water, and other additives, on a paved surface. Microsurfacing differs from slurry seal in that it can be used on high volume roadways to correct wheel path rutting and provide a skid resistant pavement surface.
24
Thin lift overlays – Thin lift overlays are thin applications of mixtures of hot mix asphalt. Thin lift overlays may also require some milling along curbs, manholes, existing curb cuts, or other road structures to assure proper drainage and cross slopes. Cape seal – A cape seal is a thin surface treatment constructed by applying a slurry seal or microsurfacing to a newly constructed chip seal. It is designed to be an integrated system where the primary purpose of the slurry is to fill voids in the chip seal. In-place asphalt recycling – In-place asphalt recycling is a process of heating and removing around 1-2 inches of existing asphalt and remixing the asphalt with the addition of a binder additive and possible aggregate to restore the wearing surface for placement and compaction. All of this is performed in a train of equipment.
25
Appendix B
SM
TW
TF
SS
MT
WT
FS
SM
TW
TF
S
1 02
34
51
21
2 13
45
6 47
67 1
89
1011
123
45
67
8 *9
89 2
1011
1213
1413
14 2
1516
1718
1910
1112
1314
15 6
1615
1617
1819
20 5
2120
2122
2324
2526
1718
1920
2122
2322
2324
2526
2728
2728
2930
3124
25 3
2627
2829
3029
3031
SM
TW
TF
SS
MT
WT
FS
SM
TW
TF
S1
23
41
15
67
89
10 *
112
34
56
7 48
23
45
67 *
812
1314
1516
17 6
189
10 1
1112
1314
615
910
1112
1314
615
1920
2122
2324
325
1617
18 2
1920
21 5
2216
1718
1920
2122
2627
2829
3031
3323
2425
2627
2823
2425
2627
2829
12
330
31
SM
TW
TF
SS
MT
WT
FS
SM
TW
TF
S1
23
45
12
31
2** 1
34
56
76
7 18
910
11 4
124
56
78
9 *10
89 2
1011
1213
414
1314
215
1617
1819
1112
1314
1516
617
1516
1718
1920
2120
2122
2324
25 5
2618
1920
2122
23 3
2422
2324
2526
27 5
2827
2829
3025
2627
2829
3031
2930
SM
TW
TF
SS
MT
WT
FS
SM
TW
TF
S1
23
45
12
12
34
5 *6
67
89
1011
*12
34
56
78
97
89
1011
12 6
1313
1415
1617
18 6
1910
11**
* 1 12
1314
15 4
1614
1516
1718
19 3
2020
2122
2324
25 3
2617
18 2
1920
2122
2321
2223
2425
2627
2728
2930
3124
2526
2728
29 5
3028
2930
31
Amen
dmen
t Sch
edule
Acti
on Ite
ms:
***A
ugus
t Sna
psho
ts w
ould
not
be
appr
oved
unt
il Oct
ober
MAP
Dat
abas
e Q
uery
1**
*Aug
ust S
naps
hots
are
to b
egin
amen
ding
FY 20
15 p
rogr
amPr
oject
s sub
mitt
ed to
MPO
2
MPO
subm
ission
dea
dline
3
SCHE
DULE
DOE
S NOT
APP
LY TO
SEMC
OG
FHW
A/FT
A Ap
prov
al; P
rogr
am c
hang
es 5
EPA
Appr
oval
(if a
pplic
able)
*
STIP
Non-
MPO
Am
endm
ents
sent
out
for P
ublic
Revi
ew a
nd C
omm
ent 6
FY 20
14 S/
TIP A
men
dmen
t Sch
edule
(6.21
.13)
Octob
er 20
13No
vemb
er 20
13De
cemb
er 20
13
Janu
ary 2
014
Febr
uary
2014
Marc
h 201
4
FHW
A ap
prov
es FY
2014
-17 S
TIP/TI
P
** Ju
ne 2
is la
st sn
apsh
ot to
am
end
the
FY 20
14 p
rogr
am
MDO
T fini
shed
with
revi
ews/S
ends
Ltr 4
April
2014
May 2
014
June
2014
July
2014
Augu
st 20
14Se
ptem
ber 2
014
26
Appendix C - Preventing STIP Related Project Delays and Frequently Asked Questions Preventing STIP Related Project Delays According to federal law (23 CFR 450), all transportation projects must be either listed in a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) or in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) if the project is outside an MPO boundary. The MPO TIP documents are included in the STIP by reference. The STIP and TIP documents are prepared every three years. The current approved STIP covering FY 2011-2014. The new STIP covers FY 2014-2017 is in development and is expected to be approved by early fiscal year of 2014. Federal regulations also allow for these STIP and TIP documents to be amended. If a project is not in the current STIP or TIP document, then it must be amended into the document. Amendments for the MPO TIP documents require approval by the MPO, MDOT and FHWA. STIP amendments require approval by FHWA. Once the amendment is approved, the STIP fields in MPINS are updated. Projects cannot be obligated in MFOS unless they are in a current approved STIP/TIP document and the STIP fields in MPINS are properly updated to show that the projects have been approved. Federal regulations allow for the grouping of projects that are “not considered to be of appropriate scale” to merit individual listing in the STIP. In Michigan, these groupings are called General Program Accounts or GPAs. Some projects with specific work type activities and some phases can be grouped together in a GPA. FHWA/FTA does not have to see the list of individual projects by phase, but MDOT must maintain the list internally. Project lists for each program are typically maintained by the program manager. For 100 percent state funded projects, federal approval is not required; however, it must still meet financial constraint requirements. Regardless of funding source, work type or phase, all regionally significant projects must be identified in the STIP. By law the STIP must demonstrate financial constraint by identifying resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be available to deliver the program. Financial constraint for the STIP and TIP documents is required by federal regulations.
27
Appendix C (continued) - Preventing STIP Related Project Delays and Frequently Asked Questions
Statewide Planning Section Contacts
MPO/Rural Program Manager
Phone (517 AC)
Urbanized Area or Program Acronym MPO
Rick Fowler 335-2641 Battle Creek BCATS Battle Creek Area Transportation Study
Jim Koenig 373-1881 Bay City BCATS Bay City Area Transportation Study
Paul Lott 335-4166 Benton Harbor/St. Joe TwinCATS* Benton Harbor/St. Joseph
Paul Lott 335-4166 BH/SJ & Niles SWMC Southwestern MI Commission
Ola Williams 241-1237 Detroit (+ Ann Arbor, Port Huron, Monroe) SEMCOG Southeast MI Council of Governments
Brandon Wilcox 335-2948 Flint GCMPC Genesee Co. Metropolitan Planning Commission
Paul Lott 335-4166 Grand Rapids GVMC Grand Valley Metro Council
Paul Lott 335-4166 Holland MACC Macatawa Area Coordinating Council
Rick Fowler 335-2641 Jackson R2PC Region 2 Planning Commission
Rick Fowler 335-2641 Kalamazoo KATS Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study
Tom Doyle 335-2936 Lansing TCRPC Tri-County Regional Planning Commission
Jim Koenig 373-1881 Midland MATS Midland Area Transportation Study
Paul Lott 335-4166 Muskegon WMSRDC West MI Shoreline Regional Development Commission
Paul Lott 335-4166 Niles NATS* Niles Area Transportation Study
Jim Koenig 373-1881 Saginaw SMATS Saginaw Co. Metropolitan Area Transportation Study
Brandon Wilcox 335-2948 Rural Task Force
Brandon Wilcox 335-2948 Small Urban
Mark Kloha 241-3675 Non-MPO/Rural
* Part of SWMC
28
Appendix C (continued) - Preventing STIP Related Project Delays and Frequently Asked Questions Statewide Planning Section (SPS) – Federal Regulation Requirements 23 CFR 450 requires: - All rural, non-MPO projects must be listed in the current STIP - All MPO projects must be listed in the current TIP (the TIP is included by reference in the
STIP) What we do In addition to preparing a new STIP every three years, the SPS maintains the current STIP through the amendment process. If projects are not in the current STIP, they must be amended into it. STIP/TIP Amendment Process 1. SPS identifies new/revised projects
• through a bi-monthly database query or “snapshot” • project initiator (PI) contacts us, via phone or e-mail. If the phase STIP indicator (field)
is not populated (filled in) correctly when a PI tries to initiate a project, they get a message to contact Mark Kloha.
2. SPS reviews project
• if rural, it is reviewed for specific information by Mark (is it already in the STIP; what phase, work type, template, let date, etc.)
• if urban, it is forwarded to the MPO program manager (in SPS) who is responsible for reviewing it
• If it is determined by SPS staff that the project is already in the STIP, the STIP fields in MPINS are populated. The PI may now initiate the project.
3. If it is determined a project must be amended into the STIP, SPS prepares and submits an
amendment request, as follows:
Rural projects: SPS prepares and submits an amendment request with a demonstration of financial constraint to FHWA/FTA (SPS may require additional information from the project initiator or manager).
MPO projects: MPO conducts public involvement, air quality conformity (if required);
demonstrates financial constraint, requests technical and policy committee approvals and submits request to MDOT. Then MDOT reviews and sends an amendment request to FHWA and/or FTA.
4. Once federal approval is obtained, SPS updates the STIP fields in MPINS and notifies the
initiator.
29
Appendix C (continued) - Preventing STIP Related Project Delays and Frequently Asked Questions General Program Accounts (GPAs)
Federal regulations allow the grouping of projects that are “not considered to be of appropriate scale” to merit individual listing in the STIP. In Michigan, these groups are called GPAs and FHWA has agreed that projects can be eligible for GPAs if they meet certain requirements. GPAs are amended into the STIP and TIP documents based on existing project lists. If an MPO has no projects in the MAP database for a particular GPA category, then that GPA is not established in that particular TIP. Once there are project(s) in the given GPA category, then those project(s) can be amended into the TIP as the GPA line item. If you have questions about a GPA category for any MPO area, please contact your region planner, the MPO program manager, and/or Mark Kloha. The sooner you contact SPS with your questions and concerns, the sooner we can be of assistance.
30
Appendix C – Frequently Asked Questions Q1: How can I tell whether a project/phase is in the STIP? A1: In MPINS, select Concept/Job ID, enter the job number and select Job Info. Select STIP
Info (right of the Environment tab). The fields below must be populated (filled in) for each phase as follows:
STIP Proposed must be “Approved” STIP Ind must be “1417” STIP FY must reflect the year of obligation. This field is populated by the Phase Scheduled Start Date (which is populated by the project programmer).
Q2: If the project/phase is not in the STIP, what do I do? A2: If the project is in an MPO, contact your region planner AND the appropriate MPO
program manager in SPS (see second page of this appendix). If the project is in a non-MPO or rural area, contact your region planner AND Mark Kloha at 517-241-3675. If you do not know whether it is in an MPO or not, contact Mark.
Q3: Why is this project/phase not in the STIP anymore? It used to be. It is an old
project that should have been automatically carried forward into the new STIP. A3: Many projects are put on hold or delayed for any number of reasons. It is critical that the
Let Date and Phase Scheduled Start Date be kept up-to-date so SPS may capture that project in the next amendment snapshot. If all programmed projects - whether active or not - were included in the STIP, there would not be sufficient financial resources to fund them all. Financial constraint is required by federal law and the Michigan Division of FHWA ensures we are in compliance at all times.
Q4: I know this project was amended into the TIP but I still can’t initiate it. Why not?
The online TIP even shows that it is approved. A4: No project can be initiated in MFOS until FHWA has approved the amendment. Even
though the MPO has approved the amendment (hence the project is shown as approved online for those MPOs with an online TIP), the STIP indicator cannot be updated until FHWA has notified SPS of their approval of the amendment and the STIP fields updated.
31
Appendix C (continued) - Preventing STIP Related Project Delays and Frequently Asked Questions Q5: The STIP Ind in MPINS shows the current STIP years but I still can’t initiate it.
Why not? A5: There are several fields on the STIP Info page that are required to be populated correctly
to successfully initiate a project/phase:
STIP Proposed must be “Approved.” If the STIP Proposed field says “Yes”, it is likely the project is in the amendment process and will be changed to “Approved” once the amendment is approved by FHWA/FTA. Then the project can be initiated.
STIP Ind must be “1417.” If it shows “0000” or any other combination of numbers or is blank, it cannot be initiated.
STIP FY must reflect the year of obligation. This field is populated by the Phase Scheduled Start Date (which is populated by the project programmer). For example, if a project has an October 2015 letting but will be obligated in September 2015 for advertising, it needs to have a FY 2015 Start Date and a FY 2016 Let Date.
Q6: The limits of this project were just extended. Is an amendment required? A6: Generally, an amendment is required whenever the following occurs. Project(s) or
project phase(s) additions that are not eligible for a GPA.
o Project(s) or project phase(s) deletions from the federally approved STIP project list. o Total project phase cost change greater than or equal to +/- 25 percent of the amount
shown on the federally approved STIP project list. o Project funding changes from a state source to a federal source. o Project funding changes from a federal source to a state source. o Scope changes to existing projects, including the following:
o Project Name / Route / Location change; o Significant change to limits along route (changes of ½ mile or more); or o Significant change to type of work or project description (for example, if the
Primary Work Type field changes or significant changes are otherwise indicated in the description of the project, then it is significant).
o Requests to shift a project that is listed in the current STIP from one FY to another, and this shift would adversely affect financial constraint.
Q7: How long will this amendment take? I have an advertising deadline to meet. A7: Amendment approvals can take up to three or more months. Contact the MPO program
manager and/or Mark as soon as you think an amendment may be needed.
32
Program: Road Rehabilitation & Reconstruction (R&R) Fiscal Years: FY 2015 - 2019 Key Contacts: General - Pat Schafer 517-322-1766 Project Programming - Rob Lippert 517-373-2088 RQFS - Jim Ashman 517-373-2967 Detailed Surface Condition Data & RSL – Dan Sokolnicki 517-241-0736 Constraint – Todd Kauffman 517-335-2938 Sub-Committee Members: Jim Ashman 517-373-2967
Mike Eacker 517-322-3474 Karen Howe 517-335-2615 Todd Kauffman 517-335-2938 Rob Lippert 517-373-2088 Bill Loehle 616-451-8950 Craig Newell 517-373-9074 Jeff Reid 517-750-0446 Kitty Rothwell 269-337-3977 Pat Schafer 517-322-1766 Justin Schenkel 517-636-6006 Program Purpose The Road R&R and Road Capital Preventive Maintenance (CPM) Programs are the major instruments used to preserve and restore pavements along Michigan’s Trunkline system. The R&R program is used to reconstruct and rehabilitate pavements that have deteriorated significantly and are no longer viable candidates for CPM. While implementing annual construction programs, MDOT strives to achieve a balanced “mix-of-fixes” with a focus on national/international and statewide corridors of highest significance. The primary intent of the R&R Program is to rebuild and rehabilitate pavements that have been significantly distressed, to benefit the traveling public, and to provide pavements that can be cost-effectively maintained into the future with CPM projects. Pavement Management definitions are provided in the MDOT Scoping Manual. Goals and Strategic Direction MDOT’s statewide pavement goal is to have 95 percent of all freeway pavements maintained in good or fair condition and 85 percent of all non-freeway pavements maintained in good or fair condition, based on the department’s remaining service life (RSL) measurement system. Pavement strategies should maintain or improve the overall network remaining life of the system and incorporate an appropriate balance of fix types. Strive to implement a condition strategy where no more than 25 percent of mainline pavements are in Category II (3-7 years RSL). Project selections should focus on national/international and statewide corridors of highest significance. Also consider ride quality, Sufficiency Surface Condition, and PASER data in determining candidate project locations and appropriate fix type.
33
The Road R&R Program should be closely coordinated with the Road CPM Program. Funding Targets The following table details the base R&R Program funding targets based solely on the allocation formula. Base target funding is provided for calculating funding shift limits and small town reconstruct funding limits.
R&R – Base Target Funding
Region FY 2015
R&R Target FY 2016
R&R Target FY 2017
R&R Target FY 2018 R&R
Target FY 2019 R&R
Target
Superior $19.6 M $19.1 M $21.6 M $ 21.1 M $22.0 M
North $27.2 M $29.1 M $32.0 M $ 32.0 M $32.2 M
Grand $28.6 M $33.2 M $31.1 M $31.7 M $31.4 M
Bay $55.7 M $54.3 M $51.8 M $52.1 M $48.9 M
Southwest $50.6 M $51.7 M $51.6 M $51.4 M $51.0 M
University $72.9 M $66.3 M $65.5 M $65.9 M $68.9 M
Metro $120.4 M $121.2 M $121.5 M $121.0 M $120.6 M
Totals $375.0 M $375.0 M $375.0 M $375.0 M $375.0 M The following table reflects adjustments for the I-94/I-75 freeway modernization projects. Each region should constrain their program each year to the current target in the MAP database. Transfers and adjustments, funding shifts to CPM Program, freeway lighting etc. are not reflected in the targets below.
Revised Base Target
Region FY 2015
R&R Target FY 2016
R&R Target FY 2017
R&R Target FY 2018
R&R Target FY 2019
R&R Target
Superior $17.6 M $19.1 M $21.6 M $ 21.1 M $22.0 M
North $24.4 M $29.1 M $32.0 M $ 32.0 M $32.2 M
Grand $25.3 M $33.2 M $31.1 M $31.7 M $31.4 M
Bay $50.5 M $54.3 M $51.8 M $52.1 M $48.9 M
Southwest $45.6 M $51.7 M $51.6 M $51.4 M $51.0 M
University $66.2 M $66.3 M $65.5 M $65.9 M $68.9 M
Metro $114.4 M $99.2 M $41.5 M1 $0 M1 $0 M1
Totals $344.0 M $353.0 M $295.0 M $254.0 M $254.4 M 1Funding is being transferred to the trunkline modernization template for I-94/I-75 freeway modernization projects.
34
The following table reflects the base region target allocation for FY 2019.
Add
in w
eigh
ts to
add
up
to 1
00%
↓we
ight
Bay
Gra
ndM
etro
Nor
thSo
uthw
est
Supe
rior
Uni
vers
itySt
atew
ide
10%
% A
vera
ge C
ost (
RQ
FS c
ost t
able
s) F
reew
ay17
.6%
13.3
%23
.4%
6.9%
14.0
%7.
1%17
.7%
100.
0%5%
% A
vera
ge C
ost (
RQ
FS c
ost t
able
s) N
onFr
eewa
y18
.7%
11.0
%14
.9%
11.8
%13
.5%
11.7
%18
.4%
100.
0%10
%%
Urb
an 5
0,00
0+ la
nem
iles
6.6%
7.2%
71.5
%0.
0%6.
6%0.
0%8.
1%10
0.0%
4%%
Sur
face
con
d >=
3 -
Fre
eway
lane
mile
s17
.5%
12.7
%22
.8%
9.4%
12.3
%2.
4%22
.8%
100.
0%2%
% S
urfa
ce c
ond
>= 3
- N
on F
reew
ay la
nem
iles
16.9
%8.
3%11
.8%
18.9
%13
.1%
19.1
%12
.0%
100.
0%
4%PA
SER
<=6
Free
way
lane
mile
s15
.5%
14.2
%20
.0%
12.3
%12
.2%
2.8%
23.0
%10
0.0%
2%PA
SER
<=6
Non
-Fre
eway
lane
mile
s15
.5%
9.4%
12.2
%19
.2%
14.8
%15
.4%
13.4
%10
0.0%
9%%
RSL
<=7
- F
reew
ay la
ne m
iles
17.9
%9.
3%23
.4%
9.2%
17.6
%2.
1%20
.5%
100.
0%4%
% R
SL <
=7 -
Non
Fre
eway
lane
mile
s 19
.9%
6.8%
12.6
%20
.1%
14.3
%13
.8%
12.4
%10
0.0%
8%%
Sur
face
Con
ditio
n >=
3 an
d C
OH
S N
at/S
tate
lane
mile
s12
.4%
10.0
%26
.0%
14.9
%8.
9%10
.5%
17.4
%10
0.0%
5%%
Sur
face
Con
ditio
n >=
3 an
d C
OH
S R
eg/L
ocal
lane
mile
s20
.6%
9.1%
6.6%
17.3
%15
.8%
17.4
%13
.2%
100.
0%
8%%
RSL
<=7
and
CO
HS
Nat
/Sta
te la
ne m
iles
12.7
%8.
0%25
.9%
15.7
%12
.7%
9.5%
15.5
%10
0.0%
4%%
RSL
<=7
and
CO
HS
Reg
/Loc
al la
ne m
iles
24.5
%7.
1%7.
6%18
.2%
17.2
%11
.4%
14.0
%10
0.0%
13%
% R
SL C
at I&
II o
n C
omm
AA
DT
5000
+ la
nem
iles
1.7%
3.2%
39.5
%0.
0%25
.7%
0.0%
30.0
%10
0.0%
12%
% R
SL C
at I&
II o
n A
AD
T 50
,000
+ la
nem
iles
8.9%
5.5%
60.0
%0.
0%5.
1%0.
0%20
.5%
100.
0%10
0.0%
Res
ultin
g 20
19 N
ew T
arge
t with
upd
ated
dat
a$4
8.90
$31.
41$1
20.5
7$3
2.20
$51.
01$2
1.99
$68.
93$3
75.0
$375
.013
.0%
8.4%
32.2
%8.
6%13
.6%
5.9%
18.4
%10
0.0%
2013
Bas
e Ta
rget
$48.
4$3
2.2
$142
.5$2
5.6
$46.
9$1
8.1
$61.
4$3
75.0
12.9
%8.
6%38
.0%
6.8%
12.5
%4.
8%16
.4%
100.
0%
2018
Tar
get a
ppro
ved
and
publ
ishe
d in
201
8 C
FP$5
2.1
$31.
7$1
21.0
$32.
0$5
1.4
$21.
1$6
5.9
$375
.013
.9%
8.4%
32.3
%8.
5%13
.7%
5.6%
17.6
%10
0.0%
Diff
eren
ce (2
018
to 2
019)
($
3.2)
($0.
3)($
0.4)
$0.2
($0.
4)$0
.9$3
.0$0
.0
Diff
eren
ce fr
om 2
013
to 2
019
$0.5
($0.
8)($
21.9
)$6
.6$4
.1$3
.9$7
.5$0
.0
DR
AFT
2019
R &
R T
arge
t Allo
catio
n Fo
rmul
a(2
012
Suffi
cienc
y Fi
le D
ata,
201
2 Pa
vem
ent C
ondi
tion
File
Dat
a, 2
011/
2012
PA
SER)
Cos
t
25%
3.0%
25%
Size
of S
yste
m
25%
Usa
ge
25%
35
R&R Program Fiscal Constraint and Template Transfers Constraint will again be maintained on an annual basis for each year. The R&R Program fiscal constraint can be determined by accessing the ACRS tool. The “Current Target” column will account for the base funding level, as well as all approved transfers and adjustments. All R&R Program should be programmed in MPINS and template transfers should be completed in MAP Management System (MMS) by April 18, 2014, before the CFP submittal date of April 25, 2014. Each region will be responsible to ensure constraint, and constraint will continue to be monitored using ACRS reports. Contingencies should be accounted for by under-programming, reserving template target funds to cover such things as extras, overruns, and future Preliminary Engineering. The amount reserved will be at the discretion of the Associate Region Engineer (Development). In general, the first year of the CFP should be fully programmed, leaving a small percentage for extras and overruns. Later years should have funding available for future Preliminary Engineering and Right-of-Way phases, as well as extras and overruns. Each region is required to provide this information in their Road R&R Program Summary. Funding Shift Option Regions may consider funding shifts between the R&R and CPM Programs. The funding shift amount is based on the base target of the year of the shift. If shifts are requested for the long term strategy, they should use the base target from the last year of the Call. Please follow the guidelines below: • Not more than 20 percent of the requesting region’s R&R base target may be shifted to the
CPM Program. • Not more than 20 percent of the requesting region’s CPM base target may be shifted to the
R&R Program. • Regions must submit a baseline strategy reflecting existing funding distribution and a
proposed strategy with revised (proposed) funding distribution. • Regions must include a write-up that documents the issues, benefits and possible
implications of the proposed fund shift strategy. The write-up must also include the table showing the proposed funding shifts (both R&R to CPM and CPM to R&R) by year, including any previously approved amounts.
• A blank table will be placed in ProjectWise along with these instructions. The table is to be filled in to reflect any funding shift requests along with previously approved shifts for the years included in this Call.
• Strategies for baseline and proposed funding shifts must be made public in RQFS, and write-ups and RQFS file names must be in ProjectWise by September 23, 2013.
The Pavement R&R and CPM Subcommittees will review the proposals on a regional and statewide basis and assess the impacts on progress toward achieving and sustaining our goals. Previously approved shifts should be included in the strategy but will not need to be re-approved. Each region is required to provide this information in their Road R&R Program Summary.
36
Project Selection Strategy Statewide Selected FY 2019 projects should strive to reflect your CFP 2018 approved long-term strategy. The number of lane miles in the submitted projects for reconstruction will be compared to the lane miles in the approved reconstruction strategy. A separate comparison will be made relative to rehabilitation. Justification is to be provided if the difference for either comparison exceeds ±65 percent. Reconstruction projects should be targeted for pavements that are no longer cost effective or feasible for improving with rehabilitation or preventive maintenance fixes. Rehabilitation projects should be targeted toward locations that are not yet ready for reconstruction, but cannot be cost effectively addressed in the preventive maintenance program. R&R projects must be targeted toward pavements that have a Category I Remaining Service Life (0-2 years) at the time of project construction. Exceptions may be approved by submittal of a justification form, described below. Project locations that can be preserved for extended periods with cost-effective rehabilitation projects, delaying the need for reconstruction, should be given priority. Justification forms are required for projects meeting one or more of the following: • RSL at construction >2 years • Fix life outside of the Fix Life Guidelines • Cost thresholds or parameters exceeded • Small town reconstruction limitations exceeded • Projects that were previously approved and are being revised with this Call and meet one of
the above, but do not have a previous justification form. Each justification form is provided by the region, the Pavement R&R Subcommittee makes a recommendation, and the Call for Projects Approval Committee approves or rejects the project. The Justification form and instructions can be found in ProjectWise:
(PW\CFP End Year2019\Call For Projects\Letter\Road Rehabilitation & Reconstruction (R&R)) File names should include route and date, and job number if available. Only submit new or revised justification forms. When feasible, avoid creating new composite pavements (Hot Mix Asphalt [HMA] over concrete) and target locations to cost-effectively reduce the number of composite pavements. Freeway Continue to select a balanced mix-of-fixes. As mentioned above, selecting appropriate locations for resurfacing and rehabilitation will ensure we vary the time when projects need to be reconstructed and will add life for a cost-effective price. Non-Freeway Consistent with the strategy for the freeway, continue to select a balanced mix-of-fixes. The focus should be on rehabilitation and preventive maintenance work to maintain the overall network remaining life of the non-freeway system.
37
Non-Freeway Small Town Reconstruction Small town reconstruction should be limited to an average over the five years of the Call of no more than one small town every two years unless approved by the Call for Projects Approval Committee. Justification shall accompany the request and include the basis for the request and the total cost of the projects. The definition of a small town is any city or village outside an urbanized area boundary with population between: • 0 and 25,000 for Bay, Grand, Southwest, University, and Metro Regions. • 0 and 7,500 for North and Superior Regions. A list of small towns per region as defined above can be found in ProjectWise (PW/CFP End Year 2019/Call For Projects/Letter/R&R). The purpose of this requirement is to keep the limited available funds from being spent in just a few areas since we have a significant network to maintain. Project Programming Create draft concept statements for new projects prior to the preliminary project submittal. All project spreadsheets will be generated using the ACRS R&R Call for Projects Report. Instructions on how to run and export this report can be found in ProjectWise. Please contact Todd Kauffman at 517-335-2938 with questions regarding the ACRS Call for Projects Report. MPINS provides functionality to handle multiple work types and fix lives. For projects that have not yet been let, whether previously programmed or being added during this Call, multiple work type codes are to be programmed when applicable. Changes in MPINS are to be made in conjunction with the 2019 Call. This includes both CPM and R&R projects. Changes should be made by the PRN for road related work and by the structure for bridge related work. Additional information can be found in the MPINS User Guide in Appendix K. For projects that have not yet been let, whether previously programmed or being added during this Call, utilize the Fix Life Guidelines that were used for the 2019 Call (same as 2018 Call guidelines). Applicable changes are to be made in conjunction with the 2019 Call. This affects only R&R fixes of the following five fix types, which had changes from the 2017 Call: Crush and Shape, Rubblize, Unbonded Concrete Overlay, HMA Reconstruction, and Concrete Reconstruct. Some projects may use an alternate pavement bidding (APB) process, which would impact budgets and fix life estimates. Guidance on the APB process can be found here, including how APB projects are identified, the criteria, and approval process. Please contact Wayne Pikka at 517-335-1894 with questions regarding APB.
38
When initially programming the Job Numbers (JN): • If the JN is for rehabilitation work without Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) or APB, then
select the appropriate work type(s). • If the JN is for rehabilitation work with LCCA or APB required/anticipated, then select
Rehabilitation Subcategory and Rehabilitation (WTC 170) Work Type. • If the JN is for reconstruction work with LCCA or APB required/anticipated, then select
Recnst Exist (WTC 160) Work Type or Interchange Reconstruct (WTC 162) Work Type. Note: After the LCCA is completed or after award for APB, change the Subcategory, Work
Type and Fix Life to match the project. Be sure to review at the PRN level also. For Fixed Cost Variable Scope projects, MPINS data is to be modified with correct “as awarded” information. Further information on this will be provided at a later date. The Fix Life Guidelines for this Call are shown on the following page.
39
40
Projects Added Outside the Call Process Occasionally projects are added to the R&R program outside of the Call process. For all projects funded by the Road R&R template, except for warranty work, the following steps are to be followed: 1. Region sets up and approves the Concept Statement in MPINS and places scoping documents
in the job number folder in ProjectWise for R&R Subcommittee reference. DO NOT OBLIGATE ANY PHASES UNTIL AFTER APPROVAL FROM THE CALL FOR PROJECTS APPROVAL COMMITTEE.
2. Region notifies R&R Subcommittee Chair by e-mail that a project is being added. a. Provide the information on the R&R spreadsheet, utilizing the spreadsheet from the most
recent Call. The information is to be clearly identifiable. b. Provide justification form, if required. c. In the e-mail, please provide the link to the scoping documents. d. If there are time constraints within which the region needs project approval, specify and
explain. 3. The R&R Subcommittee reviews the project and submits its recommendation to the
Approval Committee. 4. The region will be notified of Approval Committee action. Key Dates September 23, 2013 RQFS strategies made public in RQFS. Text summary of deviations from
previous year’s strategies, RQFS file names, and funding shift write-ups and table in ProjectWise (including long-term strategy adjustments).
October 8, 2013 Feedback from Pavement R&R and CPM Subcommittees for RQFS
strategies and funding shift requests October 11, 2013 Revised RQFS strategies made public in RQFS and/or revised text
submittals in ProjectWise, as needed based on feedback October 21, 2013 RQFS strategies and funding shift recommendations submitted to the
P&SC Committee December 13, 2013 Strategies approved by CFP Approval Committee February 10, 2014 Preliminary project submittal. Draft proposed project spreadsheet and
justification forms saved to ProjectWise. Each region’s preliminary project submittal is to include the following:
1. Strategy and RQFS Information: Based on the preliminary 2019
project selections, estimate the number of lane miles that will be worked on and enter into RQFS. Make revised strategies public.
2. Project spreadsheet utilizing the ACRS Call For Projects Report. Instructions on how to run and export this report as well as a sample
41
project spreadsheet can be found in ProjectWise. If the required format is not followed, the spreadsheet will be rejected. Also submit a pdf of the ACRS Spreadsheet.
3. Draft justification forms presented in ProjectWise (PW\CFP End Year 2019\Call For Projects\Regions\Region\Submittals\Preliminary\ Road Rehabilitation & Reconstruction (R&R)\Justification Forms). File names should include route and date, and job number if available. Only submit new or revised justification forms.
Bay Region North Region University Region Grand Region Southwest Region Metro Region Superior Region
4. Preliminary Road R&R Program Summary following the format
located in ProjectWise (PW\CFP End Year 2019\Call For Projects\Letter\Road Rehabilitation & Reconstruction (R&R)).
5. Scoping documents are to be available in ProjectWise for review, with a link to them included in the Spreadsheet for each new project.
March 21, 2014 Feedback to regions on proposed project submittal April 18, 2014 All projects programmed on MAP database April 25, 2014 CFP Final Program Submittal
Each region’s CFP final program submittal is to include the following documentation and information:
1. Strategy and RQFS Information:
• RQFS strategy form (RQFS “Print Strategy”) • RQFS category table and results (RQFS “RSL Data by Category
Table”)
2. Updated project spreadsheet utilizing the ACRS Call For Projects Report. Follow the instructions provided in ProjectWise. If the required format is not followed, the spreadsheet will be rejected. Also submit a pdf of the ACRS Spreadsheet.
3. New or revised justification forms presented in ProjectWise (PW\CFP End Year 2019\Call For_Projects\Regions\Region\ Submittals\Final\Road_Rehabilitation & Reconstruction (R&R)). File names should include route and date, and job number if available. Only submit new or revised justification forms.
Bay Region North Region University Region Grand Region Southwest Region Metro Region Superior Region
42
4. Region road project maps. • 2014-2019 R&R projects • 2014-2015 CPM projects
Above projects and current RSL should be on one map and color coded, by year. See example road project map and instructions in ProjectWise. Please refer to ProjectWise for sample map map (PW\CFP End Year 2019\Call For Projects\Letter\Road Rehabilitation & Reconstruction (R&R)).
5. Final Road R&R Program Summary following the format located in ProjectWise (PW\CFP End Year 2019\Call For Projects\Letter\Road Rehabilitation & Reconstruction (R&R)).
6. Scoping documents are to be available in ProjectWise for review, with a link to them included in the Spreadsheet for each new project.
43
Program: Road Capital Preventive Maintenance (Road-CPM) Fiscal Year: FY 2015 and FY 2016 (Functional Enhancement [FE] Only) Key Contact: Erin Chelotti, Construction Field Services Division 517-322-1237 Sub-Committee Members: Andy Bennett 517-322-5043 Ben Krom 517-322-6855 Rob Lippert 517-373-2088 James Ashman 517-373-2967 Alison Hamlin 906-786-1830 Erin Chelotti 517-322-1237 Goals and Strategic Direction MDOT’s statewide pavement goal is to have 95 percent of all freeway pavements maintained in good or fair condition and 85 percent of all non-freeway pavements maintained in good or fair condition, based on the department’s remaining service life (RSL) measurement system. Pavement strategies should maintain or improve the overall network remaining life of the system and incorporate an appropriate balance of fix types. Strive to implement a condition strategy where no more than 25 percent of mainline pavements are in Category II (3-7 years RSL). Project selections should focus on national/international and statewide corridors of highest significance. Also consider ride quality and Sufficiency Surface Condition data in determining candidate project locations and appropriate fix type. The Road CPM Program should be closely coordinated with the region’s Road Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (Road-R&R) Program. Program Description Capital Preventive Maintenance Program – The intent of the Road-CPM Program is to implement planned strategies of cost effective treatments to existing roadway systems that preserve the system, retard future deterioration, and maintain or improve the functional condition of the system without substantially increasing structural capacity. The Road CPM budget continues to have two subgroups, Pavement Sealing and Functional Enhancements, to encourage a balanced Road-CPM strategy that will complement the regions’ Road-R&R strategy. A discretionary budget and an emerging technologies budget also exist to supplement either group to achieve the most cost effective preventive maintenance strategy. The discretionary budget can be used for pavement sealing, functional enhancements, or emerging technologies. Road-CPM fixes must be done on roads with a RSL of greater than two years at the time of construction. Exceptions will be considered by the Road-CPM Call for Projects Subcommittee if justification is provided in the project field review report. Selected FY 2015 projects should strive to reflect your 2018 CFP approved long-term strategy. The number of lane miles in the submitted projects for CPM will be compared to the lane miles
44
in the approved CPM strategy. Justification is to be provided if the difference exceeds ±35 percent. Standard Capital Preventive Maintenance Treatments – The following table lists all Standard CPM treatments and indicates whether the treatment is a pavement seal or a functional enhancement.
Standard Capital Preventive Maintenance Treatments Pavement Seal Functional Enhancement • HMA Crack Treatment • Concrete Crack Treatment • Concrete Joint Resealing With Minor Spall
Repair • Overband Crack Fill- Pretreatment • Chip Seals • Micro-surfacing • Ultra-Thin HMA Overlay-Low & Medium
Volume (<1” thick) • Paver Placed Surface Seal • Shoulder Fog Seal
• Non-Structural HMA Overlay (1.5”)* • Surface Milling with Non-Structural
HMA Overlay (1.5”)* • HMA Shoulder Ribbons • Full Depth Concrete Pavement
Repairs • Diamond Grinding • Dowel Bar Retrofit • Concrete Pavement Restoration** • Underdrain Outlet Clean Out and
Repair ***
* In certain cases, the use of 2” overlays is approved. Pre-approved cases include: the use of
2” for crown correction, the use of superpave mixes that require 2” lifts, the use of a scratch course prior to a 1.5” overlay in areas where there is a concern with crack sealing materials, and where it is necessary to mill 2” to address distress (such as rutting). The use of 2” overlays is still the exception to the rule and the use of 2” of HMA in the Road-CPM program for any reason other than the pre-approved reasons listed above will require approval from the Associate Region Engineer (Development), FHWA, and MDOT’s CPM Engineer on a case-by-case basis.
** Includes Joint Spall Repair, Surface Spall Repair, Joint/Crack Sealing, Full Depth Repairs
and Diamond Grinding. *** If included with other CPM work. Emerging Technology Treatments – A statewide fund equaling $4.0 million is available for projects utilizing emerging technology treatments. Regions who want to utilize this fund should submit candidate projects to the CPM Call for Projects Sub-Committee, who will review and select the projects. Emerging technology treatments are listed in the table below. Emerging Technologies not listed in the table will be considered by the Road-CPM Subcommittee on a case-by-case basis. While these new treatments are promising, their performance and cost effectiveness is unproven. The selection of a new treatment will require monitoring and reporting of the findings consistent with the “AASHTO Research Protocol for Pavement Preservation”, adopted January 6, 2000, by
45
the Engineering Operations Committee. A copy of the Region Development Guidelines for Workplans for Emerging Technologies for Pavement Preservation Projects is included in this section. Failure to monitor and report on emerging technology treatments could affect the distribution of funds for emerging technologies in future years.
Emerging Technology Treatments • Polymer Injection Slab Stabilization • Ultra-Thin HMA Overlay- High Volume (<1” thick) • FiberMat (Stress Absorbing Membrane Interlayer or
Stand Alone Top Course) • TruPave Engineered Paving Mat (Interlayer) • Longitudinal Joint Stabilizer (Possible use for rumble
strips) Funding Targets The following tables detail the base Road-CPM funding targets for FY 2015 and FY 2016. FY 2016 FE targets are to be used to program projects that will require additional time for survey, etc. the remaining targets are approximate and for information only. Transfers and adjustments are reflected in the targets below. Each region should constrain their program each year to the current target in the MAP database.
FY 2015 CPM Targets Region Pavement
Sealing Functional
Enhancements Discretionary
Funds Transferred From R&R
Total
Superior $5.11 M $3.83 M $3.83 M $12.78 M North $4.48 M $3.36 M $3.36 M $11.19 M Grand $4.13 M $3.1 M $3.1 M $1.43 M $11.76 M Bay $3.9 M $2.93 M $2.93 M $9.75 M Southwest $3.78 M $2.83 M $2.83 M $4.5 M $14.44 M University $5.52 M $4.14 M $4.14 M $13.8 M Metro $7.09 M $5.32 M $5.32 M $17.72 M Emerging Technology Treatments
$ 4.0 M
Totals $34.0 M $25.5 M $25.4M $6.43 M $95.44 M
46
FY 2016 CPM Targets Region Pavement
Sealing* Functional
Enhancements Discretionary
Funds* Transferred From R&R*
Total*
Superior $5.11 M $3.83M $3.83M $1.60M $14.38 M North $4.48M $3.36 M $3.36 M $11.19 M Grand $4.13 M $3.10 M $3.10 M $1.66 M $11.99 M Bay $3.90 M $2.93 M $2.93 M $9.75 M Southwest $3.78 M $2.83 M $2.83 M $9.44 M University $5.52 M $4.14M $4.14M $13.80 M Metro $7.09 M $5.32 M $5.32 M $17.72 M Emerging Technology Treatments
$ 4.0 M
Totals $34.0 M $25.5 M $25.4M $3.26 M $92.27 M *FY 2016 Pavement Sealing, Discretionary, and Transfers from R&R are for information only. The identified funding allocations include all preliminary engineering and construction engineering costs. Each project shall be programmed with federal funding for all phases. The target for preliminary engineering charges is five percent of the construction cost. The target for construction engineering charges on warranty projects is five percent of the construction cost. The target for construction engineering charges on projects not covered by a warranty is eight percent of the construction cost. It is recognized that on some projects it will be necessary to exceed the percent targets for preliminary engineering and construction engineering. A reason for exceeding the target should be provided in the field review sheet. CPM Program Fiscal Constraint and Template Transfers Constraint will again be maintained on an annual basis. The Road-CPM Program fiscal constraint can be determined by accessing the department’s ACRS tool. All Road-CPM Program projects and template transfers should be completed in the MAP Management System (MMS) by April 18, 2014, before the CFP submittal date of April 25, 2014. Each region will be responsible to ensure constraint, and constraint will continue to be monitored using the ACRS. Contingencies should be accounted for by under-programming, reserving template target funds to cover such things as extras, overruns, and future Preliminary Engineering. The amount reserved will be at the discretion of the Associate Region Engineer (Development). Funding Shift Option Between Road-R&R and Road-CPM Regions may consider funding shifts between the R&R and CPM Programs. The funding shift amount is based on the base target of the year of the shift. If shifts are requested for the long term strategy, they should use the base target from the last year of the Call. Please follow the guidelines below: • Not more than 20 percent of the requesting region’s Road-R&R target may be shifted to the
Road-CPM Program.
47
• Not more than 20 percent of the requesting region’s Road-CPM target may be shifted to the Road-R&R program.
• Regions must submit a baseline strategy reflecting existing funding distribution and a proposed strategy with revised (proposed) funding distribution.
• Regions must include a write-up that documents the issues, benefits and possible implications of the proposed funding shift strategy. The write-up should also include a table showing the proposed funding shifts (both Road-R&R to Road-CPM and Road-CPM to Road-R&R) by year, including any previously approved amounts.
• A blank table will be placed in ProjectWise (PW/CFP End Year 2019/Call for Projects/Letter/RR), along with these instructions. The table is to be filled in to reflect any funding shift requests along with previously approved shifts for the years included in this Call.
• Strategies for baseline and proposed funding shifts must be made public in RQFS, and write-ups and RQFS files names must be in ProjectWise by September 23, 2013.
The Pavement R&R and CPM Subcommittees will review the proposals on a regional and statewide basis and assess the impacts on progress toward achieving and sustaining our goals. Previously approved shifts should be included in the strategy but will not need to be re-approved. Each region is required to provide this information in their Road R&R Program Summary. Project Programming MPINS provides functionality to handle multiple work types and fix lives. For projects that have not yet been let, whether previously programmed or being added during this Call, multiple work type codes are to be programmed when applicable. Changes in MPINS are to be made in conjunction with the 2019 Call. This includes both CPM and R&R projects. Changes should be made by the PRN for road related work, and by the structure for bridge related work. Additional information can be found in the MPINS User Guide in Appendix K. Projects Added Outside the Call Process Occasionally projects are added to the CPM program outside of the Call process. For all projects funded by the Road CPM template, except for warranty work, the following steps are to be followed: 1. Region fills out a Field Review sheet for the project. 2. Region notifies CPM Subcommittee Chair by e-mail that a project is being proposed and
provides the completed Field Review sheet. 3. The CPM Subcommittee reviews the project. 4. The region will be notified if the project is approved
48
Key Dates February 10, 2014 Preliminary project submittal for 2015 FE, SS, ET and 2016 FE
(earlier submittals will be accepted). Each region’s preliminary project submittal is to include the
following:
1. Project Field Review Report for each candidate, which will be the basis for treatment recommendation. **There is a revised field review report format. A blank report can be found in ProjectWise (PW/CFP End Year 2019/Call For Projects/Letter/Road Capital Preventive Maintenance (CPM).
2. Project spreadsheet following the required format presented in ProjectWise (PW/CFP End Year 2019/Call For Projects/Letter/R&R).
March 21, 2014 Feedback to regions, and regions can begin Programming of
Validated Projects. April 18, 2014 All projects programmed on MAP database April 25, 2014 CFP Final Program Submittal
1. Project spreadsheet following the required format presented in ProjectWise (PW/CFP End Year 2019/Call For Projects/Letter/R&R). If the required format is not followed, the spreadsheet will be rejected.
Candidate Project Reviews The Preliminary Project Submittal will be reviewed by the Road-CPM Subcommittee in February and March of 2014. The reviews will consist of both office and field reviews. The regions may be asked to participate in the reviews. The purpose of the reviews will be to discuss the region’s approach to the FY 2015 and 2016 FE Road-CPM program assembly, and confirm that the submitted program is consistent with the CFP instructions. If the CPM Subcommittee has questions or concerns regarding the proposed project, a second sheet will be added to the field review report to document correspondence. The results of the FY 2015 and FY 2016 FE Road CPM Subcommittee screening will be finalized and returned to the regions by March 21, 2014, if they subject their preliminary projects by February 10, 2014.
49
2013 Call For Projects CPM Fix Life Extensions*
Fix Type Life extension (in years)
Life extension (in years)
Life extension (in years)
Flexible Composite Rigid HMA Crack Treatment*** 1-3 1-3 N/A Overband Crack Filling*** 1-2 1-2 N/A One Course HMA Overlay 5-10 4-9 N/A Mill and One Course HMA Overlay 5-10 4-9 N/A Single Course Chip Seal 3-6 N/A N/A Double Chip Seal 4-7 3-6 N/A Single Course Micro-Surface 3-5 ** N/A Multiple Course Micro-Surface 4-6 ** N/A Ultra-Thin HMA Overlay 3-6 3-6 N/A Paver Placed Surface Seal 4-6 ** N/A Full Depth Concrete Repair N/A N/A 3-10 Concrete Joint Resealing**** N/A N/A 1-3 Concrete Spall Repair N/A N/A 1-3 Concrete Crack Sealing**** N/A N/A 1-3 Diamond Grinding N/A N/A 3-5 Dowel Bar Retrofit N/A N/A 2-3 Concrete Pavement Restoration N/A N/A 5-10 * The time range is the expected life extending benefit given to the pavement, not the
anticipated longevity of the treatment. ** A life extension will be provided; however, data are not available to quantify the life
extension. *** The life extension values for crack treatments on HMA surfaces should not be added to
the values in the R&R fix life guidelines when determining fix lives for entry into RQFS and MPINS. The life extension values for actual crack sealing jobs should still be programmed in MPINS, but should not be included in RQFS.
**** The life extension values for concrete joint resealing and concrete crack sealing should
not be added to the values in the R&R fix life guidelines when determining fix lives for entry into RQFS and MPINS. If the fix is applied in reaction to a poor performing pavement and the intent of the job is to get the original life expected out of the pavement, the fix should not be included in RQFS and the life extension value in MPINS should be limited to avoid overestimating the life of the pavement. Otherwise, the life extension value should be programmed in MPINS and included in RQFS.
50
REGION DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES for
WORKPLANS for EMERGING TECHNOLOGY TREATMENTS for PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PROJECTS
At their January 2000 meeting the Engineering Operations Committee approved a general process to track and document the effectiveness of new “emerging technologies” for pavement preservation. The basis for the process was the Research Protocols for Pavement Preservation, dated September 1999, which was developed by AASHTO. The following guidelines further explain how a workplan should be developed for department preservation projects, whenever a new technology is utilized. A workplan is required for any project that uses a new technology that is not considered standard department practice. The purpose of the workplan is to fully describe the technology and its particular use on a project(s). It answers questions such as: How will the technology be used? What are its benefits? In addition to a general description of the project and how the work will be performed. Department Oversight The Regions/TSCs have primary responsibility for the initiation, construction, monitoring, and reporting of projects utilizing new technologies. The CPM Call for Projects Sub-Committee maintains statewide oversight of the process and review/approval responsibility for project acceptance. The Region/TSC will draft a workplan, which is then submitted to the CPM Call for Projects Sub-Committee for review and acceptance. WORKPLAN COMPONENTS Summary Page Provides a brief (snapshot) summary of the project. Includes the project location and description, identification (CS & JN), technology name, proposed construction date, and whether the project is R&R or CPM. Background Statement Describes the project details and the purpose of the technology. Includes some background on the technology, as to its’ primary benefits and development/usage to date. Why was this project selected to demonstrate the technology’s effectiveness? Description of the Treatment (Fix) Provide a detailed description of the project. Include any additional information not included in the background statement, as to how the technology is expected to extend the pavement’s service life, if R&R, or extend service life, if CPM. Objective Provide a concise statement regarding the intended accomplishments from this project with emphasis on the technical merits involved. What about the technology needs to be understood and demonstrated?
51
Study Tasks Provide a listing of the work tasks involved to accomplish the project objective. These could involve pre-testing of materials, specific construction oversight, collection of samples, field documentation, data analysis, and documentation/reporting. Does the vendor or material supplier have a role in the project outcome and/or is their presence required on site? The AASHTO research protocol provides additional insight for this item. Anticipated Results Describe what benefits are likely to occur and how they are applicable to current department practices. Documentation and Reporting Describe what project documentation is required. How long will project monitoring need to take place? As a minimum, after construction is completed a series of reports are required. They are: Construction Report - Documents how the work was performed with emphasis on any
deviation from the intended course of action. Includes all pertinent information about the technology itself; including actual usage, limits, material reports, IDRs, and deviations from plan details. Initial conclusions about the technology and recommendations on additional trial projects are desired.
Progress Reports - Depending on the duration of the monitoring cycle, one or more
progress reports may be required. Their primary purpose is to report on current field performance, including trends over time, and recommendations on further use. An annual update is usually required, unless unusual circumstances justify a lengthier reporting schedule.
Final Report - A detailed accounting of the project’s findings. Summarizes
previous information from past reports. Includes all data analysis and outcomes from study tasks with conclusions/recommendations regarding the technology’s use and implementation into department practice. Was the objective accomplished? Documents project costs and benefits derived.
Project Oversight Identifies a regional contact person(s) who will take the lead on the project. If more than one Region is involved, then identify a “lead” Region. If multiple persons are involved, identify individual roles and responsibilities. Include a description of assistance required from others, including the central office or contracted (non-department) personnel. Budget Account for any special needs that require extra project funds or personnel. Are special materials, testing equipment, or facilities required? If so, how will they be acquired?
52
Program: Bridge Program Fiscal Years: FY 2015 – 2019
Key Contacts: Beckie Curtis 517-373-2256 Melissa Knauff 517-335-2999 Sub-Committee Members: Beckie Curtis 517-373-2256 Melissa Knauff 517-335-2999 Linda Reed 517-373-8076
Robert Kelley 517-373-0734 Steve Katenhus 989-233-3794 Kay Adefeso 248-483-5214 Mike Halloran 269-327-4499 ext. 233 Jeff Reid 517-750-0446 Rob Lippert 517-373-2088 Brad Wagner 517-373-0097 Dave Juntunen 517-335-2993 Matt Chynoweth 517-322-3322 Eric Costa 517-335-2971
Goals and Strategic Direction The purpose of the bridge program is to preserve Michigan’s Trunkline bridges. The emphasis area of this program is to address the needs of all structures of critical concern, maintain the non-freeway goal of 85 percent bridges in good or fair condition, focus efforts on improving our freeway bridges to meet a condition state of 95 percent good or fair and ensure that no more than 10 percent of the total deck area of our National Highway System (NHS) bridges are classified as structurally deficient. Priority should be given to serious and critical rated bridges, poor rated freeway bridges, bridges with fracture critical elements in poor condition, and scour critical bridges. A balanced strategy consisting of bridge replacement, rehabilitation, and preventive maintenance (PM) projects that make efficient use of federal bridge funding should be utilized. Coordination with the road preservation program with a focus on national/international and statewide corridors of highest significance should be incorporated. Focus PM on fair rated bridges to maintain and further reduce the bridge network deterioration rate. The bridge network goals with commentary are as follows: 1. As a priority on the network, immediately address the needs of 100 percent of the
structures of critical concern. In recent years, we made good progress programming our serious and critical bridges. However, there are still serious and critical bridges being monitored or have temporary supports, and additional bridges enter this category every year. We must continue to strive to provide more permanent fixes for these structures, removing them from the poor category when possible. The Michigan Bridge Reporting System
53
(MBRS) can be used to download a spreadsheet showing serious and critical bridges (NBI and non-NBI). Each region with structures rated 3 or less is requested to discuss their progress toward meeting this goal. For each serious or critical structure (NBI and non-NBI) that is not included in the 2015 through 2019 CFP, a brief summary, including the following, will be required: current condition of the bridge (specific details of the elements rated 3 or less), safety of the bridge and actions taken to maintain serviceability (i.e. increased inspections, temporary supports, maintenance repairs, false decking, reduced lanes, and posting), reason prohibiting inclusion in the CFP, a plan as to when this structure will be repaired, rehabilitated, or replaced, and an estimated rehab/replacement cost to return structure to good condition. A current detailed scope is required to be on file for each of these bridges.
2. Improve the overall condition of the freeway bridge network so that 95 percent of the
structures on that network are rated good or fair. We are making steady improvements to the freeway bridge network. To continue to make progress, we need to keep targeting poor rated elements on freeway bridges when utilizing replacement and rehabilitation funds. The MBRS can be used to download a spreadsheet showing poor freeway bridges. Each region is requested to discuss their progress toward meeting this goal. For each poor freeway bridge that is not included in the CFP, a brief summary including the following is required: condition of bridge, reason prohibiting inclusion in the CFP, a plan as to when this structure will be repaired, rehabilitated, or replaced, and an estimated rehab/replacement cost to return structure to good condition.
3. Maintain the overall condition of the non-freeway bridge network at 85 percent good or
fair. Strategies should be developed to maintain the non-freeway bridge network at a condition state of 85 percent good or fair.
4. All fracture critical bridge elements must be maintained in good or fair condition. Each
region is requested to provide a list of their structurally deficient fracture critical bridges and indicate the status of these bridges, what year they are included in the program, and current condition of the fracture critical element(s).
5. Manage Scour Critical Bridges and reduce the number of Scour Critical Bridges on the
Interstate. Each region is requested to provide a list of their scour critical bridges (where item 113 is 3 or less, or U) and perform a vulnerability assessment of those bridges. Instructions and a spreadsheet for doing a risk assessment will be provided by the Bridge Management Section. On the list the region should indicate which bridges are included in the CFP, if scour countermeasures have been placed (Pontis element 218 can assist in determining this), if replacement or remediation is recommended to address the scour criticality, if there is observed scour, a prioritization (High, Medium, Low) based on the provided spreadsheet, and whether the structure carries an interstate. A discussion of the region’s strategy to manage their highest priority scour critical bridges, and to replace or remediate all that carry interstate traffic within the next 20 years should be provided. For every scour critical interstate bridge, as well as all other high priority bridges that are not included in the CFP, a brief summary including the following is required: condition of
54
bridge, does it carry interstate, why is it high priority, is there observed scour, region plan to manage the bridge, work that is needed to address scour, and estimated cost.
Starting in 2018, we must mitigate or reduce the number of interstate scour critical bridges by 5 percent each year. Below is a suggested target for the number of scour critical interstate bridges each region should try to incorporate into their 2015-2019 program as an initial step toward reaching this goal. Each region should review their current program to determine how many are currently programmed and, if feasible, include additional PM, Rehab, and Replacement projects to meet the 5 year target.
Region Scour Critical
Interstate Bridges 2015-2019 Year Target
Superior 0 0 North 2 0-1 Grand 14 3-4 Bay 10 2-3 Southwest 22 5-6 University 23 5-6 Metro 6 1-2 Total 77 16-22
6. Proposed bridge work must adhere to the following guidelines:
a. Proposed deck work must follow the Bridge Deck Preservation Matrix (located at this link in ProjectWise: Bridge Deck Preservation Matrix) dated June 8, 2011, and be consistent with current ratings for Bridge Safety Inspection Report (BSIR) 58a and 58b. If the proposed work does not meet the criteria, a work justification request must be submitted for recommendation by the Bridge Subcommittee, and the Call for Projects Approval Committee will approve or reject the project.
b. Deck, superstructure or substructure must be rated 4 or less to replace that specific element. If the proposed work does not meet the criteria, a work justification request must be submitted for approval by the Bridge Sub Team.
c. Complete bridge replacements require submittal of a work justification for approval by the Bridge Sub Team. For culvert replacements, if the culvert is rated a 4 or less, a justification form is not required.
7. Focus on the preservation of “5” rated bridges (freeway and non-freeway). To maintain
the progress we have made in reducing our number of poor bridges, we need to focus on the preservation of our “5” rated bridges, with a higher emphasis on “5” rated decks, to ensure these do not drop into the poor category. The MBRS can be used to download a spreadsheet showing “5” rated bridges. The Bridge Management Section will also provide a list of your “5” rated bridges with the time to poor and the controlling element (58, 59 or 60). This information will be provided as an additional tool to assist the region in prioritizing the needs of their “5” rated bridges. Each region should also discuss specifically how they are managing their “5” rated decks. For those regions that have region bridge crews performing
55
maintenance work, provide a list of the bridges that received work in 2013 and the type of work that is being done. If available, provide a list of the work that is planned for 2014.
8. Provide sound long-term management of MDOT’s designated Big Bridges. These structures are managed centrally and will be reported on by the Bridge Management Section.
Statewide and Region Strategy used for the 2015 – 2019 Call for Projects In the past, the typical statewide strategy used to allocate funds was 22 percent PM, 30 percent rehabilitation, and 48 percent replacement. However, due to the I-94/I-75 trunkline modernization projects, the bridge rehabilitation and replacement templates were reduced, which changed the statewide strategy for 2019 to 27 percent PM, 28 percent rehabilitation and 45 percent replacement. Each region should develop a strategy tailored to meet their specific needs. The Bridge Management Section is available to assist in the development of your bridge strategies. The rehabilitation, replacement and PM targets are based upon the deck area of bridges in each region that are candidates for that type of work. Percentage of total funding in each work category for each region is shown in the following table. As each region nears or exceeds the bridge network goal, their region strategy should be adjusted to focus more on bridge PM to maintain the good condition of their network. The region strategies below were developed based on our overall statewide strategy, with the reductions for the I-94/I-75 trunkline modernization projects included. Each region must review their strategy and comment on the feasibility of implementing the mix-of-fixes for 2015-2019. If a region does not agree with the strategy shown, they must provide a revised strategy with the justification for the change. A BCFS model comparing your revised strategy to your region strategy below must be provided.
Statewide and Region Strategy (with the I-94 / I-75 Reductions) Replacement Rehabilitation PM Superior 35% 29% 36% North 12% 33% 55% Grand 21% 41% 38% Bay 51% 30% 19% Southwest 42% 35% 22% University 37% 29% 34% Metro 56% 20% 24% Statewide 45% 28% 27% Bridge R&R and PM Funding Targets Baseline funding targets for FY 2015-2019 Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation, and Bridge – PM are shown below. The funding targets given represent your total allocation (PE + CE + Construction). These funds were allocated based on each region’s needs relative to qualifying candidate bridges in each category. Please note that these are baseline targets; transfers and
56
adjustments for FY 2015-2019 are not shown. The regions should refer to ACRS to determine current target and available funding for FY 2015-2019. The regions will need to reserve funding in each template to cover future PE and cost increases that may arise during design. Template transfer requests between the Bridge-R&R template and the Bridge-PM template must be submitted to the Bridge Sub Team for review and approval. Justification for the funding shift must be provided. (Note: The PM and R&R bridge baseline template targets are reduced in FY 2017 due to the Superior Region Escanaba River Bridge Replacement Project and two Big Bridge Projects: I-75 over the Rouge River and I-75 over Fort Street.)
Bridge - Replacement and Rehabilitation Baseline Template Targets
Region FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 Repl Rehab Repl Rehab Repl Rehab Repl Rehab* Repl Rehab*
Superior $1.5 M $1.4 M $1.7 M $1.4 M $1.1 M $0.8 M $2.2 M $1.6 M $2.0 M $1.7 M
North $0.5 M $1.0 M $0.4 M $1.0M $0.3 M $0.5 M $0.3 M $1.0 M $0.4 M $1.1 M
Grand $3.3 M $7.9 M $2.9 M $7.1M $1.4 M $3.6 M $2.1 M $6.8 M $3.5 M $6.7 M
Bay $17.8 M $10.7 M $19.2 M $11.0 M $8.5 M $5.5 M $16.9 M $9.9 M $17.1 M $10.1 M
Southwest $9.7 M $6.8 M $9.7 M $7.6 M $6.0 M $4.3 M $10.1 M $8.5 M $10.8 M $8.9 M
University $10.1 M $7.9 M $9.7 M $8.3 M $5.7 M $4.3 M $10.8 M $8.3 M $11.1 M $8.6 M
Metro $35.3 M $13.2 M $34.6 M $12.5 M $18.2 M $6.8 M $35.8 M $12.8 M $33.3 M $11.8 M
Totals $78.2 M $48.9 M $78.2 M $48.9 M $41.2 M $25.8 M $78.2 M $48.9 M $78.2 M $48.9 M
* FY 2018 and 2019 Bridge Rehabilitation shown for information only. The amounts shown are
an estimate of the amount that each Region should reserve for programming in a future CFP.
Note: Targets shown do not reflect transfers and adjustments. These are baseline targets only. Refer to ACRS for current available targets.
Below are revised baseline targets for FY 2017, FY 2018 and FY 2019 (FY 2015-2016 unchanged) that reflect adjustments for the I-94/I-75 Trunkline Modernization Projects. Each region should constrain their program each year to the current available target (refer to ACRS).
57
Bridge - Replacement and Rehabilitation Baseline Template Targets (with the I-94 / I-75 Reductions)
Region FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 Repl Rehab* Repl Rehab* Repl Rehab*
Superior $0.3 M $0.2 M $1.7 M $1.2 M $1.6 M $1.3 M
North $0.1 M $0.2 M $0.2 M $0.8 M $0.3 M $0.9 M
Grand $0.4 M $1.1 M $1.6 M $5.2 M $2.7 M $5.2 M
Bay $2.6 M $1.7 M $13.0 M $7.6 M $13.3 M $7.8 M
Southwest $1.9 M $1.3 M $7.8 M $6.5 M $8.4 M $7.0 M
University $1.8 M $1.3 M $8.3 M $6.4 M $8.6 M $6.7 M
Metro $10.9 M $4.1 M $28.4 M $10.2 M $26.0 M $9.2 M
Totals $18.0 M $10.0 M $61.1 M $38.0 M $61.0 M $38.1 M
Bridge – Preventive Maintenance Baseline Template Targets
Region FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017* FY 2018* FY 2019*
Superior $1.4 M $1.5 M $0.8 M $1.6 M $1.6 M
North $1.6 M $1.5 M $0.8 M $1.5 M $1.5 M
Grand $5.0 M $4.8 M $2.5 M $4.7 M $4.8 M
Bay $4.9 M $4.8 M $2.6 M $5.0 M $4.8 M
Southwest $4.1 M $4.2 M $2.2 M $4.1 M $4.4 M
University $7.6 M $7.8 M $4.2 M $8.0 M $7.9 M
Metro $11.3 M $11.3 M $5.9 M $11.0 M $10.9 M
Totals $35.9 M $35.9 M $19.0 M $35.9 M $35.9 M
The PM targets shown combine the CSM and CPM funding for each region.
* FY 2017-2019 PM shown for information only. The amounts shown are an estimate of the amount that each region will have available to program in a future CFP.
Note: Targets shown for FY 2015-2019 do not reflect transfers and adjustments. These were
the baseline targets. Refer to ACRS for current available targets.
58
Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) and Bridge Emerging Technology A statewide fund, equaling $3 million per year, is available for projects. This funding is primarily for bridge emerging technology projects, but at the discretion of the Statewide Bridge Alignment Team (SBAT, formerly Bridge Committee) it may also apply to ABC projects. ABC – The Federal Highway Administration initiated a goal that 25 percent of our reconstruction projects utilize ABC methods. The table below shows examples of ABC, including Prefabricated Bridge Element Systems (PBES) and structural placement methods. A list of bridges where the proposed work is bridge replacement, culvert replacement, or superstructure replacement will be provided to each region. For bridges scheduled for FY 2016, the region will provide documentation for each bridge listed on why or why not PBES should be utilized. For bridges scheduled for FY 2017, the region will provide documentation for each bridge listed on why or why not an ABC structural placement method should be utilized. The ABC forms that are needed for documentation if a project is or is not a candidate for ABC can be found on ProjectWise at the following link: ABC-PBES. The region should refer to the MDOT Guidance Document - ABC/PBES Policy and the Bridge Design Manual, Section 7.01.19, for specific criteria to include in your documentation. Any questions should be referred to Dave Juntunen, Bridge Development Section, Design Division. Project lists and documentation will be reviewed by the SBAT, and ABC projects will be selected.
Accelerated Bridge Construction
Prefabricated Bridge Element Systems • Full Depth Precast Deck Panels for Rapid Bridge Deck
Replacement (where work is superstructure or bridge replacement)
• Precast Pier Caps • Decked Beams • Precast Substructures Structural Placement Methods • Self Propelled Modular Transport (SPMT) • Lateral Slide
Bridge Emerging Technologies – For FY 2016, regions are requested to submit candidate projects for utilizing emerging technology in bridge construction. Regions should submit candidate projects that will be reviewed and selected by the SBAT. The table below shows several examples of Bridge Emerging Technology projects. Regions are encouraged to provide additional new technology ideas to the SBAT. However, for a technology to be considered as an emerging technology it must demonstrate proven performance by other states or agencies, must have documented research or technical guidelines, and be a technology that can be implemented within the project time constraints. Information for the available emerging technologies will be available from Linda Reed, Bridge Scoping Engineer, Design Division, along with a submittal form.
59
Bridge Emerging Technology
• Full Depth Precast Deck Panels for Rapid Bridge Deck Replacement (where work is deck replacement only)
• Stainless-Clad Reinforcement for Bridge Decks • CFRP post tensioning and prestressing of prestressed beam structures • Carbon Fiber Sheets used to Strengthen or Confine Reinforced
Concrete Structures • Ultra High Performance Concrete • Rapid set latex modified concrete overlay • Innovative Scour Countermeasures and/or Scour Monitoring • Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Substructures
The ABC and bridge emerging technology projects will be monitored by the Operations Field Services Division’s Structural Section, who will report on the technologies performance. Regions are requested, as part of CFP submittal, to update the spreadsheet Linda Reed maintains that lists previous and current ABC, Emerging Technology, and Innovative Contracting projects The spreadsheet is in ProjectWise at the following link: New Technologies. General Information See the General Information (Page 11) for the inflation rate and indirect cost rate that should be used for each year of the call. Review road corridor and interchange needs, as well as the under clearance of the project bridge and adjacent bridges on the roadway under when scoping rehabilitation or replacement projects. Review high load hit history and, when possible, reduce or eliminate any under clearance problems. Identify lead based paint systems and when overall paint condition is poor, the bridge should be programmed for full paint replacement. If a bridge has a zinc based paint system, zone paint and spot painting should be considered over full paint. From a purely preservation standpoint, zinc based paint systems should never need to be removed. For identification of a paint system, contact Bryon Beck, Structural Section, Operations Field Services Division. When programming jobs that are to be designed or managed in Lansing, the start dates for PE should provide sufficient design time to complete the proposed work. The recommended amount of time from start of PE to plan completion for the various categories of work is as follows: CPM 1 year - 1 ½ years Rehabilitation 1 ½ years - 2 years Replacement 2 years - 2 ½ years
60
For replacement and rehabilitation projects, the minimum amount of time between the programmed plan completion date and the programmed let date must be 6 months. If the 6 month timeframe is reduced during the course of the project, a justification will be required. It is understood that there will sometimes need to be exceptions to the above time frames. When these exceptions are needed, the region must work with the Design Division (Bridge Design Supervising Engineer) to determine an agreeable schedule. This must be done prior to submitting jobs for programming. Key Dates September 23, 2013 Submit bridge strategies (in ProjectWise) and notify Beckie Curtis for
review by the Bridge Subcommittee. Also include a BCFS model that compares Call strategy to revised strategy.
Bay Region North Region University Region Grand Region Southwest Region Metro Region Superior Region January 31, 2014 Submittal of preliminary project list for FY 2015-FY 2019. Include a
work justification form for each bridge that does not meet guidelines covered under item 6. Include a strategy and updated BCFS model that takes into account projects being added into the Call. Include a write up that has a paragraph for each bridge rated 3 or less, each poor (4 rated) freeway bridge, fracture critical structure, and scour critical high priority bridge that is not programmed within the Call.
Submit detailed scopes for FY 2015 – FY 2019 replacement projects to
Melissa Knauff, Design Division. (5 Year Replacement Program) Submit detailed scopes for FY 2015 – FY 2017 rehabilitation projects
to Melissa Knauff, Design Division. (3 Year Rehabilitation Program) Submit detailed scopes for FY 2015 – FY 2016 CPM projects to
Melissa Knauff, Design Division. (2 Year CPM Program)
Submit detailed scopes for FY 2015 CSM projects to Melissa Knauff, Design Division. (1 Year CSM Program)
Update 2016 (PBES) and 2017 (ABC - Structural placement methods) project lists with documentation in ProjectWise at the following location: PBES and ABC Project List, and notify Linda Reed. Also, submit the ABC Candidate / Not A Candidate forms at the links below. Information to be reviewed by the Statewide Bridge Alignment Team.
61
Bay Region North Region University Region Grand Region Southwest Region Metro Region Superior Region March 21, 2014 Feedback to regions and begin programming of projects approved by
Bridge Subcommittee.
April 18, 2014 All projects programmed on MAP database. April 25, 2014 CFP Final Program Submittal.
Bridge submittal requirements are included in the Bridge CFP outline,
which is located in ProjectWise: PW/CFP End Year 2019/Call For Projects/Letter/Bridge
Submit FY 2016 Bridge Emerging Technology candidate projects, including a detailed scope, to Linda Reed, Design Division.
62
Program: Safety Fiscal Years: FY 2015 – 2019 Key Contacts: Bob Rios, Design Division 517-335-1187
Mark Bott, Design Division 517-335-2625 Sub-Committee Members: Mark Bott 517-335-2625 Bob Rios 517-335-1187 Steven Pethers 810-658-4029, ext 319 Kami Brown 616-451-1893 Goals and Strategic Direction MDOT’s safety goal is to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on the state trunkline system in support of the Michigan Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and the department’s efforts of achieving the vision Toward Zero Deaths (TZD). MDOT strategies include addressing locations with correctable fatality (K) and serious injury (A) crashes with cost effective safety improvements, as identified in the SHSP. Locations identified shall support the key focus areas of the SHSP. The Time of Return (TOR) Analysis is required as part of the justification in project selection unless noted otherwise. Program Description The MDOT Safety Program is a major component in the department’s emphasis of addressing locations with safety concerns as part of the statewide transportation program. More importantly, the Safety Program is a means by which the department can support the goals of Michigan’s SHSP. The purpose of the SHSP is to identify the key safety needs in the state and guide investment decisions that achieve significant reductions in highway fatalities and serious injuries. Michigan’s SHSP was adopted in December 2004 by the Governor’s Traffic Safety Advisory Commission, and endorsed by the Governor in 2006. In 2013, the SHSP was revised to reflect current safety needs and goals. An emphasis on goals established an incremental reduction of the frequency of fatalities and serious injuries. The 2013 SHSP goals are to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all roadways from 889 and 5,706 respectively in 2011 to 750 and 4,800 in 2016. In 2012, there were 936 fatalities and 5,676 serious injuries reported statewide. On the state trunkline system the department’s goal is to reduce fatalities and serious injuries from 419 and 2,286 in 2011 to no more than 333 and 1,700 in 2016. This equates to a 4.5 and 5.8 percent reduction per year respectively. While this is the goal for 2016 on the state trunkline, MDOT’s vision is TZD. The department’s ultimate goal is to reduce fatalities to zero and minimize serious injuries. The 2016 goal is an interim goal of that vision. In 2012, there were 384 fatalities and 2,295 serious injuries reported on the state trunkline system. Below are statewide and trunkline graphs that compare the actual values of fatalities and serious injuries with the required values to meet the 2016 interim goals.
63
For the department, the SHSP provides guidance in the allocation of the annual safety template to reduce crashes and fatalities, and improve the safety and operational efficiency of the state trunkline system. To meet the goal of reduced fatalities and serious injuries, the SHSP identifies four broad emphasis areas: High-risk Behaviors, At-risk Road Users, Engineering Infrastructure and System Administration. Of these areas, Engineering Infrastructure is predominately addressed by the Safety Program through Intersection Safety and Lane Departure projects. In addition, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety improvements are the department’s emphasis for At-risk Road Users. Although not directly impacted by the Safety Program, the remaining emphasis areas do receive an indirect benefit. For more information on Michigan’s SHSP, go to the Safety Call for Projects folder in ProjectWise. The strategy of the Safety Program is to address locations with correctable fatality (K) and serious injury (A) crashes with cost effective safety improvements identified in the SHSP to meet the Trunkline 2016 safety goals in the department’s efforts of achieving the TZD vision. As part of the Call for Projects process, locations are identified where safety improvements (add a center left turn lane, right turn lane, geometric improvements to accommodate signalization, median protection, etc.) can be made in support of key focus areas in Michigan’s SHSP. These locations are identified through the latest Transparency Report, High Crash List, Fatality and Serious Injury Region wide Maps, 3R/4R Safety Reviews, customer concerns, and Pavement Friction Analyses. Training is available in identifying safety locations and TOR. Please contact Bob Rios, Safety Programs, Design Division, to schedule this training.
64
Submitted concepts must address one or more SHSP focus area(s) and meet a TOR as follows: 1. Standalone safety improvement – TOR of 7 years or less. 2. Standalone safety improvement for a location identified on the latest Transparency Report –
TOR of 10 years or less. 3. Safety improvement in conjunction with a Road or Bridge Construction project. CPM
projects do not qualify – TOR of 9 years or less. All wrong-way movements onto freeways, as noted in Gregory Johnson’s memo dated August 8, 2011, were to be addressed in the CFP 2018. However, if there are any locations that still need programming, these locations are to be included in this Call for Projects. A safety project that is packaged or coordinated with an R&R (Road or Bridge) project requires a separate job number. Funding for safety projects will not be template transferred to another program. All proposed traffic signal installations or modernizations including pedestrian hybrid signals included in concepts shall have prior approval from the Traffic Signals Area prior to submittal. Any geometric improvements to accommodate a warranted new traffic signal or revised signal phasing are to be funded with safety discretionary funding. Projects submitted beyond the targets will be considered as candidates for the discretionary funding. Each region shall conduct a Road Safety Audit (RSA) for one or more of the proposed FY 2019 improvements. For guidance, an RSA should be conducted for all FY 2019 proposals exceeding $750,000 in programmed construction costs. An RSA should be done prior to 30 percent completion of the plans. The purpose of the audit is to ensure the appropriate safety fixes are incorporated into the overall design. Include the estimated cost of the RSA in the programmed preliminary engineering amount onto the Safety Excel spreadsheet. All safety projects submitted for FY 2019, except freeway improvements, shall have the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) predictive analysis performed on them. A comparison of future conditions with and without the proposed improvement shall be provided. For further information on conducting an RSA or performing a HSM analysis, please contact Bob Rios, Safety Programs, Design Division. Each region must include indirect costs for both preliminary and construction engineering as applicable per the memo from Myron G. Frierson, dated November 4, 2010. The amount must be entered onto the Safety Excel spreadsheet. All costs associated with each submitted project shall be included in the Safety Excel spreadsheet. Funding Targets Listed in the table below is the FY 2019 funding targets. The funding targets given represent the amount available (PE + CE + ROW + Construction) by region for the Safety Template. This does not include the Safety Work Authorization (SWA) funding for each region. The funding targets were allocated based on the exposure factors of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and lane miles in relation to the percentage of fatalities and serious injuries experienced during 2010 through 2012 on state trunkline in the respective regions.
65
Continuing in the Call for FY 2019 is the opportunity for each region to allocate up to a set percent of their funding target for low cost safety improvements. For FY 2019 this percentage is 25 percent. The focus shall be on system wide safety improvements done by work authorization or through the letting process. Spot location improvements are to be addressed as part of the SWA work. A TOR justification will not be required if the proposed improvement is selected from the list of approved safety system wide fixes (Eligibility Guidelines for Low Cost Safety Improvement Projects) located in the ProjectWise Safety Call for Projects folder. Please contact Bob Rios or Traci Leix should assistance be required.
Safety Base Targets
Region
Number of Fatalities and Serious Injuries
(2010-2012)
Percentage of Fatalities and
Serious Injuries (2010-2012)
FY 2019
Safety Target
Superior 486 5.99% $1.4 M North 751 9.25% $1.8 M Grand 1,062 13.09% $1.8 M Bay 1,011 12.46% $2.1 M Southwest 936 11.53% $1.9 M University 1,438 17.72% $2.6 M Metro 2,432 29.97% $4.1 M Discretionary $2.0 M SWA
$1.4 M Totals 8,116 100.0% $19.0 M
Discretionary funding will be used by the Design Division to ensure overall quality, low TOR projects are being programmed statewide and fund improvements that accommodate a new signal/revised signal phasing. Projects submitted beyond the targets will be considered as candidates for the discretionary funding. As noted above, additional funds are available for a SWA work. SWAs are used for minor roadside safety improvements that can be performed in a timely manner. Each region is allocated $200,000 in SWA funding for FY 2014. SWA funding is evaluated each year based on statewide needs. SWA funding is not guaranteed throughout the five year plan. Updated SWA instructions will be provided at the beginning of the fiscal year.
66
Program Submittal Requirements Each region’s submittal should include the following documentation and information: 1. The completed Safety Excel spreadsheet, FY 2015 through FY 2018 projects, located in the
ProjectWise Safety Call for Projects folder –– PW/CFP End Year 2019/Call For Projects/Letter/Safety.
2. A Submittal Package for FY 2019 (or any new candidate proposed in the existing Five Year Plan) candidates must include:
a. The Completed Safety Excel spreadsheet, FY 2019 projects, located in the ProjectWise
Safety Call for Projects folder – PW/CFP End Year 2019/Call For Projects/Letter/Safety.
b. Concept Justification i. TOR Excel worksheet. The ’14 TOR analysis Excel worksheet and instructions
are located in the ProjectWise Safety Call for Projects folder – PW/CFP End Year2019/Call For Projects/Letter/Safety
ii. Crash listing (one-line listing) used in TOR. Also include crash reports (UD-10s) for crashes in which the crash type was modified in the analysis.
iii. A Geometric Concept scheme with plan information. Please include as much information as possible to ensure appropriate funding at the time of programming. The Guidelines for Geometric Concept Plan Submittal are located in the ProjectWise Safety Call for Projects folder – PW/CFP End Year 2019/Call For Projects/Letter/Safety new folder
iv. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis for to accommodate a new signal/revised signal phasing.
Key Dates Dec 1, 2013 – Submittal of FY 2015 through FY 2018 updated Safety Projects (Safety Excel Feb 10, 2014 spreadsheet) and FY 2019 Safety Candidates Package (Safety Excel
spreadsheet, TOR, crash listing and geometric concept scheme) to Bob Rios, Design through ProjectWise.
Bay Region North Region University Region Grand Region Southwest Region Metro Region Superior Region
March 21, 2014 Feedback to regions and begin programming of validated projects. April 18, 2014 All projects programmed on MAP database April 25, 2014 CFP Submittal of FY 2015 to FY 2019 Safety Projects and Candidates
(updated Safety Excel spreadsheet).
67
Program: Carpool Parking Lot Fiscal Year: FY 2015 – 2019 Key Contacts: Niles Annelin, Carpool Lot Coordinator 517-335-2893 Sub-Committee Members: Donna Hoofman 616-451-1893 Jack Klee 269-337-3952 Todd Kauffman 517-335-2938 Program Description The primary purpose of the Carpool Parking Lot (CPL) Program is to provide safe and convenient parking facilities for carpoolers. Goals and Strategic Direction The focus of the program will be to maintain the condition of the lots. The entire carpool lot template will now be divided between the regions based on a formula that includes condition, number of spaces, usage of the existing lots and demand on the system, represented by the region’s percent of statewide AADT. The department will continue to develop partnerships with local businesses to meet carpool lot capacity needs. To improve the comfort and safety of carpool lot users, the program will continue to encourage installation of lights at the lots. The primary goals of the CPL program are to: • Develop partnerships with local businesses to meet the capacity needs. • Maintain the system-wide surface condition for the CPLs statewide by performing
preservation projects. • Improve intermodal connectivity by partnering with local transit agencies to provide bus
shelters or signed bus stops either in the lots or along the adjacent roadway. Scope of the Call for Projects Process Concerning the CPL Program Due to the current restrictions of the CPL, only CPM projects and resurfacing of lots in poor condition will be approved to move forward. However, we recommend cascading other projects into later years of the call period. For example, if there is a new lot proposed for 2015, move it to 2016. Design and right-of-way acquisition are allowed, as well as safety related projects such as lighting and signage.
68
Potential CPL projects are limited to those directly related to the lot itself. Projects that improve the roadway near a lot, or turn lanes into a lot, are not potential CPL projects. Acceptable projects are: • Partnerships • Lighting • Pavement preservation • Resurfacing of poor pavement • Signing Funding Targets
Carpool Lot Program Region Targets for 2015-2019 Call for Projects
Region 2015 Target 2016 Target 2017 Target 2018 Target 2019 Target
Superior $68,000 $74,000 $78,000 $63,000 $61,000 North $66,000 $66,000 $67,000 $55,000 $55,000 Grand $92,000 $90,000 $87,000 $74,000 $78,000
Bay $89,000 $90,000 $94,000 $69,000 $68,000 Southwest $83,000 $84,000 $87,000 $67,000 $66,000 University $122,000 $115,000 $106,000 $90,000 $89,000
Metro $80,000 $81,000 $81,000 $82,000 $83,000 TOTAL $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $500,000 $500,000
The above table reflects adjustments in 2018 and 2019
for the I-94/I-75 freeway modernization projects. Program Submittal Requirements A proposed project spreadsheet should be submitted listing projects by fiscal year. A sample CPL project spreadsheet is saved in ProjectWise and this format should be followed. In your submittal, please list your projects in priority order for each fiscal year, with the highest priority first. When prioritizing locations and work types for FY 2015-2019, we suggest you assign higher priority to a CPL project that can be combined with a roadway project. Please constrain your preservation project submittal to the amount allocated to your region per fiscal year.
69
Key Dates February 10, 2014 Submittal forms and the Proposed Project List for FY 2015 – 2019 CPL
projects submitted to ProjectWise for Carpool Subcommittee review March 21, 2014 Feedback to regions and begin programming of accepted projects April 18, 2014 All projects programmed on MAP database April 25, 2014 CFP Final Submittal
70
Program: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Fiscal Years: FY 2015 - 2019 Key Contact: Edward Fowler, Statewide Planning 517-241-0171 Sub-Committee Members: Kami Brown 517-241-3513 Andrea Brush 517-335-2534 Paula Corlett 517-373-2324 Joshua DeBruyn 517-335-2918 Edward Fowler 517-241-0171 Dennis Kent 616-451-4994 Rob Lippert 517-373-2088 Dal McBurrows 517-373-9055 Gonzalo Puente 517-335-0878 Rachel Tupica, FHWA 517-702-1829 Kitty Rothwell 269-337-3977 Matt Smith 517-636-5009 Goals and Strategic Direction Improving transportation system operations and Michigan’s air quality, consistent with national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM), by reducing air pollution and relieving congestion is the goal of MDOT’s CMAQ Program. The focus will be on projects that best meet these national standards by providing maximum air quality benefit and cost-effective use of financial resources. Program Purpose The purpose of the CMAQ Program is to reduce congestion and improve air quality. The program provides funding for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Michigan has 25 counties that are currently not meeting NAAQS for ozone, and/or fine particulate matter (PM 2.5). Activities that reduce congestion such as traffic flow improvements, funding of transit operations, and other programs that promote carpooling and vanpooling, can have a direct effect on the level of ozone precursors and small particles emissions. Congestion mitigation activities include: • Traffic flow improvements including intelligent transportation system (ITS) projects; • Transit operations and enhancements; • Bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs • Travel demand management, such as carpool lots, vanpooling These activities all reduce congestion by offering alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel.
71
Reducing air pollution and other adverse environmental effects of transportation projects and transportation system inefficiency are major objectives of the CMAQ Program. The CMAQ Program provides funding for a broad array of tools to meet these objectives. Projects selected for CMAQ funding will improve air quality and make progress towards achieving attainment status and ensuring compliance with the transportation conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act. Air quality is improved by congestion relief projects or programs that reduce idling, negative impacts of “stop and go” driving and the number of vehicles on the road. Based on their emissions reductions, these types of projects, including investments in improved system pricing and operations, are eligible for CMAQ funding Program Changes under MAP-21 Under the provisions of MAP-21, any state with PM 2.5 non-attainments or maintenance areas must use 25 percent of its CMAQ funds apportioned based on the weighted population of such area to address PM 2.5 emissions; eligible projects to mitigate PM 2.5 include diesel retrofits. The counties included are: Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, and Wayne in the Metro Region; and Livingston and Washtenaw in the University Region. Based on the Population Distribution of Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas table below, each region should ensure that 25 percent of the target allocation to these counties is used to address PM 2.5 emissions. Eligible CMAQ activities also now include transit operating assistance and funding for facilities serving electric or natural gas-fueled vehicles (except where this conflicts with prohibition on rest area commercialization). Eligible Areas CMAQ funds may only be used for projects in areas designated as a nonattainment for ozone, CO, or PM2.5; or in areas that were designated as nonattainment and are now classified as maintenance areas. The nonattainment and maintenance areas are listed by county on the FHWA CMAQ Web site at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/populations/nonattainment_2010/mi.cfm Funding Targets The following table details the base CMAQ Program funding targets. Region targets are determined based on the population of the counties within that region that are nonattainment and maintenance areas. The base target includes only the Trunkline share of CMAQ funds. A portion of each year’s target is set aside for ITS operations and maintenance, and is reflected in the table.
72
CMAQ – Base Target Funding Region FY 2015
R&R Target
FY 2016 R&R Target
FY 2017 R&R Target
FY 2018 R&R Target
FY 2019 R&R Target
Bay $2.3M $2.3M $2.3M $1.6M $1.6M Grand $4.4M $4.4M $4.4M $3.1M $3.1M Metro $17.3M $17.3M $17.3M $11.9M $11.9M North $0.2M $0.2M $0.2M $0.1M $0.1M Southwest $3.3M $3.3M $3.3M $2.3M $2.3M University $5.1M $5.1M $5.1M $3.7M $3.7M Statewide Set-Aside
$7.6M
$7.6M
$7.6M
$7.6M
$7.6M
Grand Total $40.2 $40.2 $40.2 $30.4 $30.4 The Statewide Set-Aside is for ITS Operations and Maintenance, Freeway Courtesy Patrol, and MichiVan service. According to Interim Guidance on CMAQ Operating Assistance under MAP-21, Michigan is eligible to finance ITS operations using CMAQ funding for an additional three years. Therefore, MDOT will use CMAQ funding for ITS operations in FY 2014-2016. An appropriate funding source for FY 2017-2019 ITS operations will be identified in future CFP, consistent with a reauthorized transportation bill. MDOT has determined to keep the CMAQ Program level through FY 2017. The region targets are reduced in 2018 and 2019 to reflect adjustments for the I-94 and I-75 trunkline modernization projects. Regions are encouraged to submit projects from each eligible county within the region in the Highway CFP to ensure equity in distribution of CMAQ funds MAP-21 did not extend the provision allowing Michigan to fund any CMAQ project at 100 percent federal funding. Only the following projects are eligible for 100 percent federal funding: 1. Rideshare programs; 2. Construction of roundabouts (all phases); 3. ITS signal timing projects (all phases); and 4. Traffic signal upgrades when interconnect, actuation or optimization activity is involved. CMAQ Program Fiscal Constraint and Template Transfers Constraint will be maintained on an annual basis. Regions must maintain constraint to the available CMAQ template target. All Projects using CMAQ funding must be submitted for eligibility determination. Once eligibility is confirmed, the project should be programmed to the MAP Database, in the
73
appropriate template, and a template transfer from the CMAQ template to the corresponding template will be processed in MAP Management System (MMS). Program Submittal Requirements Previously submitted and approved applications for projects and/or project phases for FY 2014-2017 do not need to be resubmitted if there were no changes; however, they should be included on the spreadsheet in the submittal with the year of approval noted in the comments. Prior-approved projects with any major changes in scope will require all new documents. Each region’s CFP Preliminary submittal should include the following documentation and information: 1. A Prioritized Project Spreadsheet for FYs 2015-2019. A sample spreadsheet with the
minimum required items is located in ProjectWise. 2. Emission worksheets for each proposed project. The worksheets are also available in
ProjectWise. 3. Scoping Documents. The Call for Projects Approval Committee initiated the requirement
that all projects submitted as part of the Call include scoping documents. The documents should be available in the appropriate region/TSC folder in the job number folder.
The project spreadsheet and worksheets should be submitted in MS-Excel format. DO NOT submit PDFs in the Preliminary Submittal. All description information in the spreadsheet for each project must match the description on the worksheet(s). The emission worksheets are required and must be submitted with the spreadsheet of projects for eligibility determination. Regions must include all applicant contact information for follow-up/feedback. The regions are responsible for submitting complete and accurate project spreadsheets. The regions should coordinate their project selection with the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Rural Task Forces (RTFs). The project list and worksheets will be reviewed by the CMAQ Sub-committee for eligibility determination. Specific Items Needed for Eligibility Determinations The following project types require additional information submitted with the application: 1. Non-motorized pathway:
a. Length and width of proposed path; b. Aerial maps detailing the location of the proposed path; c. Connections to existing pathways, if applicable; and d. Land uses that surround the path.
2. Intersection improvement: a. Drawings showing lane configuration of existing and proposed improvements.
3. Carpool lot expansion: a. Number of additional spaces.
74
4. Dedicated turn lanes: a. Lane diagram b. Length of lanes to be added.
5. Signal interconnection: a. Locations and number of signals to be considered.
6. Bus replacement: a. The quantity, type, and model year of the bus or buses to be replaced. If applicable,
include local bus number and/or state 71number. Key Dates: September, 2013 Call for Projects letter distributed. December, 2013 Regions select projects and coordinate with MPO. Applications and
emission worksheets will be used to submit projects. February 10, 2014 Preliminary project submittal. Applications, worksheets, and prioritized
project lists are saved to ProjectWise. Feb – March 2014 CMAQ Subcommittee review of projects. Regions will be advised of
project eligibility and, if necessary, requested to provide additional information.
April 18, 2014 All eligible projects must be programmed to MAP Database. April 25, 2014 Final Submittal. An ACRS report (Strategic Analysis & Monitoring /
Program by Obligation / Detail – Region – FYs 2015 – FY 2019 – Finance Code, select “CM” and “CMG”) which includes all programmed CMAQ projects, should be included as part of the submittal. Do not select CMAQ Template.
75
Program: Pump Station Capital Rehabilitation Fiscal Years: FY 2015 – 2019 Key Contact: Gary Mayes, Operations Field Services Division 517-322-3315 Sub-Committee Members: Gary Mayes 517-322-3315 Scott Long 517-322-1659 Eric Costa 517-335-2971 Rob Lippert 517-373-2088 Goals and Strategic Direction The goal of the Pump Station Capital Rehabilitation Program is to improve motorist safety and highway operations along Michigan’s Trunkline system by ensuring surface water runoff is properly expelled during heavy rain events. The expulsion of water is accomplished by way of highway pump stations stations that need continuous maintenance and rehabilitation efforts in order to continue to operate effectively and efficiently. Through the Pump Station Program, stations in need of these maintenance and rehabilitation efforts are targeted; specifically those not included in road or bridge preservation projects (standalone projects only). The program’s rehabilitation efforts are identified through groups of aging pump stations rated in poor condition; located on corridors of high significance that have the greatest potential for major flood events. This method of job identification ensures the program is allocating funds to stations that have the highest impact on highway safety and operations. MDOT owns 165 pump stations throughout the state with Bay, University and Metro regions having the majority of them (each region has at least one pump station). In Wayne County alone, the department owns 114 facilities. At this juncture, the program is focusing its rehabilitation efforts here. This is in part because the 114 facilities in Wayne County serve the highest traveled national and statewide corridors in the state and by sheer numbers, make up the largest group of poor rated stations.
Program Description The intent of the Pump Station Capital Rehabilitation Program is to identify and prioritize storm water pump stations in need of complete electro-mechanical rehabilitation. Funding Targets The 2019 Pump Station Capital Rehabilitation Program will have a template target of $2.0 M. This reflects a 50 percent downward adjustment for the I-94/I-75 modernization projects. At the typical funding level of $4.0M, the program has been able to average three to four station rehabilitations per year. At this rate it would take approximately 20-25 years to achieve a 100 percent good/fair condition rating, and roughly double that with 2019 appropriations.
76
It is important to this program’s success that regions include pump station rehabilitations in their road and bridge preservation projects when appropriate to free up funding for stations that cannot be included in road and bridge projects, and to help the program achieve its good/fair condition rating in an expedited time frame. Five Year Road and Bridge Plan The Operations Field Services Division continues to assess the conditions of pump stations and will assist the regions with long range planning and coordination for future rehabilitation candidates, whether they are in the Capital Program or included in road or bridge preservation projects. Program Selection Criteria The Operations Field Services Division has the primary responsibility in determining pump station eligibility. Rehabilitation selections are based primarily on known poor conditions, age of the pump station, beyond normal service life, and its relation to corridors of high significance and the overall strategic direction of the program. The program also accounts for emergency-based rehabilitation as a first priority. Associate Region Engineer (Development), current project managers and maintenance personnel will be made aware of candidate projects before they are approved for programming. This will allow them to provide input and make recommendations/suggestions on station selections. These comments will be taken into account by the Pump Station Program CFP subcommittee. Program Submittal Requirements Before approved projects can be programmed to the MAP database, copies of complete scoping documents are to be uploaded into the appropriate ProjectWise region folder: MDOTProjectWise\Documents\ (Appropriate Region) \ Likewise, if regions take exception to candidate projects selected by the Operations Field Services Division, they should be noted in a memo from the Associate Region Engineer (Development) or current program manager to the PSCRP manager. These exception memos will be placed into the same aforementioned ProjectWise folder and addressed upon review. Key Dates
November 8, 2013 The Operations Field Services Division will provide each region with
the proposed list of pump station rehabilitation candidate projects for FY 2015 through FY 2019 in ProjectWise.
December 6, 2013 Comments/exception memos are due from the regions to the
PSCRP manager with suggestions, additions or deletions with
77
justifications for any proposed changes. No action is necessary if the region agrees with the list of proposed projects.
January 10, 2014 The PSCRP manager and department staff will have determined the final
list of pump station projects selected for FY 2015 through FY 2019. March 21, 2014 For selected projects, the regions shall submit an MPINS Project Concept
Statement and upload scoping documents to the appropriate ProjectWise folder: PW/CFP End Year 2019/Call For Projects/Letter/Pump Station Capital Rehabilitation
April 18, 2014 All projects programmed and approved on the MAP database. Job
programming responsibility will reside with the Pump Station Program Manager.
April 25, 2014 CFP Notebook Submittal – An ACRS PDF report (Strategic
Analysis & Monitoring – Program Detail – Region – FY 2015 through FY 2019 Pump Station Rehabilitation Template) will be placed in each region’s Pump Station folder for inclusion in their notebook by the Systems Implementation and Monitoring Unit (no region action necessary).
78
Program: Replacement of Existing Freeway Lighting Fiscal Years: FY 2015 – 2019 Key Contact: Steve Urda, Design Division 517-373-0745 Sub-Committee Members: Rob Lippert 517-373-2088 Eric Costa 517-335-2971 Brian Baratono 517-373-0733 Steve Urda 517-373-0745 Goals and Strategic Direction The goals defined by the Freeway Lighting Replacement Program are to improve motorist safety, reduce energy usage, lower maintenance costs, and provide aesthetically pleasing lighting to Michigan’s Trunkline system. This is accomplished by identifying underperforming lighting systems/structures and replacing or retrofitting them to meet current lighting and efficiency standards. The program strives to stay abreast of new lighting technologies to help accomplish these goals. In the 2019 Call, the Freeway Lighting Program is focusing project selection in Metro region. This region contains approximately 65 percent of MDOT’s lighting system, of which 40 percent is 15 years of age or older. Program Description The Replacement of Existing Freeway Lighting Program is requesting projects for the 2019 Call. The intent is to identify and prioritize freeway lighting in need of rehabilitation/replacement. FundingTargets The Replacement of Existing Freeway Lighting Program is part of the MDOT Road and Bridge Capital Outlay Program. The 2019 funding target is $4.25M, which reflects a 50 percent downward adjustment for the I-94/I-75 modernization projects. Regions may choose to provide additional funding over and above the annual allocation. To help lower time and monetary costs, freeway lighting replacement jobs are strongly encouraged to be packaged with road and bridge projects. Combination projects will preside over stand-alone projects, unless there is a pressing lighting-safety emergency. If funding is available after combination projects are selected, stand-alone projects will be considered. Stand-alone lighting projects should be no less than two continuous centerline miles in length or one complete interchange. At typical funding levels ($8M) it is anticipated the program will replace seven miles of continuous freeway lighting and at least one interchange, annually. This is dependent on consistent funding levels as well as stable material and labor costs. Regions will retain the responsibility for calculating cost estimates. If regions require assistance in cost estimating, please contact the Design Division’s Municipal Utility Design Unit.
79
Program Selection Criteria Project selection will be heavily based on the following selection criteria: 1. Five-Year Road and Bridge Plan – Coordination of Road and Bridge R&R projects
with existing freeway lighting. 2. Age and Length – Sections of roadway no less than two centerline miles in length, or one
complete interchange where the existing freeway lighting is 25 years or older.
NOTE: When submitting projects for the 2019 Call for Projects, regions should review/coordinate new projects with the approved FY 2014-2018 program. This will ensure a higher probability of project approval. A spreadsheet of currently programmed projects will be available in ProjectWise to assist in the coordination of candidate projects. Contact a Freeway Lighting Subcommittee member with any questions.
Program Submittal Requirements Each region submitting candidate projects in the Call will need to fill out and submit the required Freeway Lighting submission spreadsheet, which will be available in ProjectWise. The submittal must include the following documentation: 1. Complete project list of candidate projects. All fields need to be filled out on the spreadsheet
with candidate projects placed in the correct FY they plan to be programmed to. 2. Lighting projects resulting from road or bridge projects must include the road or bridge job
numbers. A column has been provided on the spreadsheet for this information. The Freeway Lighting Subcommittee will select projects based on region submittals. Approved projects will be saved in an aggregated job tracking spreadsheet in the Freeway Lighting ProjectWise folder. Key Dates January 15, 2014 The Freeway Lighting Subcommittee will place a project list submission
spreadsheet into ProjectWise. This will detail the current 5-year program and will allow regions to submit new projects for the 2019 Call. It can be found at PW\Highway Call for Projects\CFP End Year 2019\Call For Projects\Letter\Replacement of Existing Freeway Lighting\.
February 11, 2014 R e g i o n preliminary project s u b m i t t a l s are due (project list
submission spreadsheet). These will be saved in each regions preliminary ProjectWise folder: PW\Highway Call for Projects\CFP End Year2019\Call For Projects\Regions\REGION\Submittals\Preliminary\Replacement of Existing Freeway Lighting\
March 21, 2014 The Freeway Lighting Subcommittee will have approved the final list
of recommended freeway lighting projects. The Program Manager will then work with each region on their approved list to sort out any additional project details. The final list of selected projects (spreadsheet) will be
80
saved in ProjectWise: PW/Highway Call for ProjectsCFP End Year2019/Call For Projects/Letter/Replacement of Existing Freeway Lighting.
April 18, 2014 All approved projects are to be programmed to the MAP database. This is
the regions’ responsibility. April 25, 2014 CFP submittal. Each region will run an ACRS report (Strategic Analysis
& Monitoring / Detail – Region – FY 2015 through FY 2019 – Freeway Lighting Template), and save it in their assigned ProjectWise-Final folder. This should be saved in a PDF and Excel spreadsheet (.xls or xlsx) format.